Review a held inbound message, then release it past the spam hold for delivery.
RELEASE A HELD MESSAGE past the hold and deliver it. The hold is what the spam filter put there, so check the message before releasing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric message id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
DestructiveHint already marks this as destructive; the description adds the practical warning to inspect the message before release and clarifies the delivery consequence. This goes beyond the annotation by communicating the risk of bypassing the spam hold.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core action in the first sentence and the caution in the second. Every sentence earns its place and the message is front-loaded.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete enough: it identifies the target action, the hold context, and the required safety step. It could mention an alternative lookup path, but that is a minor gap.
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 100% for the single id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only implicitly ties the id to a held message and does not add meaningful parameter detail beyond what the schema already documents.
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 states a specific action — release a held message past the spam-filter hold and deliver it. It clearly identifies the resource and goal, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like retry_inbound.
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?
It says the message must already be held by the spam filter and instructs checking the message before releasing it. That gives clear operational context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.