sendook-mcp

sendook_list_threads

Read-onlyIdempotent

List conversation threads in an inbox. Each thread groups related messages such as replies and forwards for organized email management.

Instructions

List conversation threads in an inbox.

Threads group related messages (replies and forwards) together. Each thread contains all messages in the conversation.

Args: params: ListThreadsInput containing: - inbox_id: Inbox to list threads from - limit: Maximum threads to return (default 20) - response_format: 'markdown' or 'json'

Returns: str: List of threads in requested format

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "sendook_list_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds context about threads grouping messages and the return format, but does not disclose potential pitfalls like pagination or behavior for non-existent inboxes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but not excessively long. It could be trimmed by relying on the schema, but it's still efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple list operation and the presence of output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the concept of threads and all parameters. Missing details like pagination ordering are minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the input schema provides descriptions, the tool description's Args section effectively rephrases and adds clarity (e.g., default limit=20, response_format enum values). It adds value beyond the schema by stating the default and required nature of inbox_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List conversation threads in an inbox' with a specific verb and resource, and explains that threads group related messages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_inboxes, list_messages, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or recommend sibling tools for specific cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server