List support emails in the shared inbox, newest first, with a short preview so agents can review and triage incoming requests.
List support emails in the shared inbox (newest first) with a short preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| justification | No | Why you are making this call, in one sentence. The person who approves it reads this; some calls need it. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Input schema / properties / justificationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Why you are making this call, in one sentence. The person who approves it reads this; some calls need it.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.3.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the ordering and that only a short preview is returned, which usefully signals 'browse then read in full'. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, pagination or result limits on a potentially large inbox, and the schema's justification field hints at an approval workflow the description never explains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with zero filler that front-loads the resource and scope before the ordering and preview detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope and ordering. The only real gap is the absence of any statement about result volume, limits or pagination for a shared inbox that could be large.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single justification parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about that parameter, though none is needed given the schema text is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (support emails in the shared inbox), plus ordering (newest first) and a preview hint. It is clearly distinguishable from inbox_read, which implies fetching one full email, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'List' versus siblings like inbox_read, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when inbox_read should be preferred, and no mention that some calls require approval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.