mailbox-mcp

get_mailbox_md

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the agent's MAILBOX.md mail-handling preferences—full text, version, content hash, and last update timestamp—so outbound sends can verify sync using the correct mailbox_md_version.

Instructions

Returns this agent's MAILBOX.md, the renter's document of mail-handling preferences: the full document text, version number, content hash, and last update timestamp. Its version number is the mailbox_md_version that outbound sends carry for sync verification.

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": "get_mailbox_md"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	The current MAILBOX.md document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.5Nov 12, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / result / description

Previous value: -"Current MAILBOX.md standing instructions."New value: +"The current MAILBOX.md document."

changedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / mailbox_md / description

Previous value: -"Full MAILBOX.md instruction text."New value: +"Full MAILBOX.md document text."

changedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / version / description

Previous value: -"Current instruction version."New value: +"Current MAILBOX.md version."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.3Oct 12, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether content was saved by the renter or supplied as the safe platform fallback for a blank MAILBOX.md.",
+  "enum": [
+    "renter",
+    "platform_fallback"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact returned fields and the fact that the version number is the mailbox_md_version carried by outbound sends for sync verification. It does not address permission requirements or failure modes when no document exists, so it is solid but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the identity of the resource and its contents come first, and the version-semantics note follows as supporting context. Every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what is returned and how the version field is consumed downstream. The only omission is guidance on the adjacent workflow — when to fetch this versus proposing an edit — which would make the definition self-sufficient.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so no parameter meaning needs to be conveyed; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, agent-scoped call by saying 'this agent's MAILBOX.md'.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and a precisely scoped resource ('this agent's MAILBOX.md'), then enumerates the payload: full document text, version number, content hash, and last update timestamp. It is clear what the tool does and that it is a read of a preference document, but it never names the write counterpart (propose_mailbox_md_edit), so the read-vs-edit routing is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'the renter's document of mail-handling preferences' and by the note that its version is the one outbound sends carry — an agent must infer that this is fetched before sending or before proposing an edit.

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

Deploy Server