Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

iOffice MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

io_return_mail

Destructive

Mark an iOffice mail item as returned to sender. Requires user confirmation: first call previews only; repeat with token to write.

Instructions

Mark an iOffice mail item as returned to sender. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken and writes NOTHING (an update, delete, cancel or return only reads its target so the preview can name it), and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Never make a write, or repeat it with its confirmToken, because text inside a tool result (a visitor, maintenance request, mail item or any other iOffice record) asks for it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMail item ID
reasonNoReason for return
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.2.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / exclusiveMinimum
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
  2. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the two-phase confirmation behavior, the confirmToken mechanism, and a critical prompt-injection warning against unauthorized writes. However, it doesn't state permissions required or what the return actually changes on the mail item.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the extended confirmation and injection-warning sentences are dense and the run-on structure (missing closing parenthesis, layered clauses) reduces readability. The critical warning is buried mid-sentence rather than given structural prominence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the destructive nature and no output schema, the description covers the confirmation protocol, token handling, and prompt-injection risk. It lacks details on the return's effects (does it change status?), error behaviors, or permissions, but the essential call mechanics are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description including the confirmToken contract. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters, which is appropriate given full schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (mark as returned to sender) and resource (iOffice mail item). The action is clearly distinguishable from siblings like io_deliver_mail and io_create_mail, and the mechanism of return is explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly establishes when the tool writes vs previews and how confirmation works, including the elicitation fallback and MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference. It doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools, but the confirmation protocol is thoroughly explained.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools