Skip to main content
Glama
OpenMonetis MCP

OpenMonetis MCP

by Welington98

Regras da caixa de entrada

list_inbox_rules
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the rules that automatically categorize captured notifications by priority, condition, and assigned category or person, so you can review how inbox items are classified.

Instructions

Lista as regras que categorizam automaticamente as notificações capturadas, com prioridade, condições e ação (categoria/pessoa).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of each returned rule (priority, conditions, action as category/person), which matters since there is no output schema. It still says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty rule set looks like.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned rule attributes in one compact clause. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

For a parameterless read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the returned fields, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is operational detail (ordering, volume/limits) that an agent might want before calling.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes inputs.

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

Purpose4/5

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

"Lista as regras que categorizam automaticamente as notificações capturadas" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (inbox rules) plus the domain role of those rules (auto-categorizing captured notifications). It is clearly distinguishable from the create/delete rule siblings by the list verb, though it never names them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the list verb; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus create_inbox_rule, delete_inbox_rule, or list_inbox_items. An agent can reasonably infer it is the read-side companion to the rule mutation tools, but nothing in the text confirms that.

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