Retrieve all active disposable email inboxes associated with your API key. Use this tool to manage and monitor multiple inboxes for receiving verification emails and OTP codes.
List all active inboxes for the current API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. The description implies a read-only listing operation but does not disclose pagination, limit defaults, or error handling. Acknowledges scope (current API key) but lacks full transparency.
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?
Single sentence, perfectly sized for the task. No extraneous information; each word earns its place.
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?
Given no output schema and no nested objects, the description is largely complete for a simple list operation. It could mention whether the result is all inboxes or paginated, but the context (current API key, active status) is sufficient for most agents.
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?
No parameters in the input schema (0 params, 100% coverage). Description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits unnecessary detail.
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?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (active inboxes), and the scope (for the current API key). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_inbox (single inbox) and create_inbox (creation).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_inbox). The description implies usage for listing all active inboxes, but lacks context for exclusions or specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.