read_reportsFetches reports from the mailbox, returning unread items oldest first by default and marking them read so you can track new updates without repeats.
Read reports left in the mailbox. By default returns unread reports, oldest first, and marks them read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| mark_read | No | ||
| unread_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the tool mutates state by marking reports read, which explains the readOnlyHint=false. It still omits whether the marking is reversible/undoable and what a returned report contains.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, then the default behavior. No filler and nothing to trim.
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?
With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition should say what a report record looks like and how limit/pagination behaves. It covers defaults and ordering well but leaves the return shape and paging behavior to guesswork.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It successfully documents the unread_only and mark_read defaults and adds the ordering semantics (oldest first) that appear nowhere in the schema, but says nothing about limit or its 50-item cap, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.
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?
"Read reports left in the mailbox" states a specific verb and resource, and the default ordering/filtering clause sharpens what a read returns. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read_messages, so the agent must infer the reports-vs-messages split.
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?
The description conveys the default usage path (unread reports, oldest first) which implies when to call it, but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names read_messages as the alternative for non-report traffic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed