Skip to main content
Glama
arbengine

mailbox-mcp

by arbengine
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_facility_messages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the message thread with your mailbox facility. Facility routing is automatic. Returns messages in reverse chronological order with sender role (member, facility, agent). Supports cursor-based pagination.

Instructions

Read the message thread with your mailbox facility. Facility routing is automatic. Returns messages in reverse chronological order with sender role (member, facility, agent). Supports cursor-based pagination. Automatically marks facility messages as read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of messages to return (1-100). Defaults to 50.
beforeNoCursor: only return messages sent before this ISO 8601 timestamp. Use the oldest message timestamp from the previous page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYesMessages exchanged with a facility.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.3
    • removedInput schema / properties / facility_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "UUID of the facility whose conversation to read.",
-  "format": "uuid",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "facility_id"
-]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states the call "Automatically marks facility messages as read," which is a state mutation in the environment. This directly conflicts with the read-only annotation, so the disclosed behavior contradicts the structured safety profile despite the description otherwise being informative.

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?

Five short declarative sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, routing, ordering/roles, pagination, side effect), with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers ordering, sender roles, pagination, and the read-marking side effect. The main gap is the absence of any when-to-use routing among the many sibling read tools, and the annotation conflict noted above.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (limit, before), so the schema already carries the syntax. The description adds only a generic "Supports cursor-based pagination" note, while the more useful ordering detail (reverse chronological) is behavioral rather than parameter-specific, making this a baseline case.

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?

"Read the message thread with your mailbox facility" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (facility message thread), and the mention of sender roles further pins down the content. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like list_facility_conversations or get_postal_thread, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_facility_conversations or get_postal_thread, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. "Facility routing is automatic" is contextual reassurance, not usage guidance, so usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools