Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mailbox-mcp

mailbox-mcp

by arbengine
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

propose_mailbox_md_edit

Propose a complete MAILBOX.md update with a reason so the renter can review and accept, reject, or modify it.

Instructions

Propose a change to the renter's MAILBOX.md, with a reason. The renter sees the suggestion in their dashboard and can accept, reject, or modify it.

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": {
      "suggested_content": "<suggested_content>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "propose_mailbox_md_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesWhy this change is suggested (e.g. "Observed 5 Amazon packages this week, all forwarded manually — adding auto-forward rule").
suggested_contentYesFull proposed MAILBOX.md content (max 10,000 chars): the complete document, not a diff.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYesCreated MAILBOX.md suggestion record.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / suggested_content / description
      Previous value: -"Full proposed MAILBOX.md content (max 10,000 chars). Must include the complete document, not just the diff."New value: +"Full proposed MAILBOX.md content (max 10,000 chars): the complete document, not a diff."
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the write is deferred to human review, not applied immediately, and the renter may modify the content. It omits whether proposals queue, expire, or replace prior pending proposals — relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the review outcome. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values need no explanation. For a two-parameter proposal tool the description is nearly sufficient, missing only whether multiple pending proposals coexist or how a proposal is identified later.

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%, and the schema already specifies that suggested_content must be the full document (max 10,000 chars), not a diff. The description only echoes 'with a reason' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Propose') and resource ('the renter's MAILBOX.md'), and adds that the change carries a reason. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the read-oriented get_mailbox_md sibling by being a proposal rather than an edit, though it never names an alternative.

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?

The second sentence establishes the workflow context (renter reviews in dashboard, then accepts/rejects/modifies), which implies this is the path for suggesting edits rather than applying them directly. However, there is no explicit 'use this when... instead of...' guidance tying it to get_mailbox_md or propose_agent_inbox_handling.

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