Envoi MCP

check_inbox

Retrieve recent emails from the agent's inbox to monitor incoming messages and manage email communication within the Envoi MCP server.

Instructions

List recent emails in the agent's inbox

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of emails to return (default: 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists emails but doesn't describe what 'recent' means, whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, how results are ordered, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recent' entails, the structure of returned emails, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that interacts with an inbox, more context on permissions, data format, or scope would be needed for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and target resource ('recent emails in the agent's inbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_email' or 'reply_to_email', but the verb 'List' versus 'read' or 'reply' provides some implicit distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_email' or 'send_email'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server