recent_messagesRetrieve recent email activity metadata—sender, subject, verification code, and direction—without message bodies, optionally filtered by alias.
Show recent mail activity (sender, subject, code, direction) — metadata only, no bodies. Optional alias filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alias | No | Alias address or id. | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the exact metadata surface returned and explicitly rules out message bodies, which sets data-scope expectations. It stops short of describing ordering (recency) semantics or pagination behavior.
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 compact sentence with the core capability front-loaded, followed by the negative scope and the filter. No filler, no repetition of the tool title.
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, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and excluding bodies. For a read-only two-parameter list tool that is nearly sufficient, though it leaves the `limit` control and result ordering undocumented.
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 only 50%: `alias` is documented in the schema, while `limit` carries only structural constraints (default 20, max 100). The description confirms `alias` is optional and acts as a filter, but says nothing about `limit` or how result volume is controlled.
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 ('Show') and resource ('recent mail activity') and enumerates the returned fields (sender, subject, code, direction), which makes the tool's scope unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_latest_code by returning metadata lists rather than a single code, though no sibling is named 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. when to use get_latest_code instead). The 'optional alias filter' hints at scoping, but the agent must infer the selection conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.