list_scheduledRetrieve scheduled emails to see pending, sent, or failed messages. Filter by account to manage multiple email accounts.
List scheduled emails. Shows pending, sent, or all scheduled emails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status (default: pending) | pending |
| account | No | Filter by account name (all accounts if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds little beyond restating statuses already defined in the schema, and it conspicuously omits 'failed' even though the schema enum includes it. No return format or pagination behavior is described.
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 front-loaded. The second sentence is somewhat redundant, but overall there is no wasted text.
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 simple, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. Minor gaps (omitted 'failed' status, no return-value detail) are acceptable given the schema and annotations.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions status values but adds no syntax, default, or account-filter detail beyond what the schema already provides, fitting the baseline of 3.
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 ('List') and resource ('scheduled emails'), making the operation immediately clear. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_emails or get_email_status, but the resource scope is unambiguous.
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?
Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives (e.g., list_emails, schedule_email, cancel_scheduled). The implied use case is obvious only from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.