mailwarden

unsnooze

Idempotent

Cancel a snoozed email thread and return it to the inbox immediately by removing its snooze label and restoring INBOX.

Instructions

Cancel a snooze: return the thread to the inbox now. SIDE EFFECTS: removes the snooze label, restores INBOX.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "threadId": "<threadId>"
    },
    "name": "unsnooze"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`threadId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`threadId`	Yes
`unsnoozed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.0Oct 29, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv0.1.8Jul 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real value beyond them by naming the concrete side effects: removing the snooze label and restoring INBOX. It stops short of saying what happens if the thread isn't snoozed or what errors may surface.

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?

Two short sentences with the outcome front-loaded and side effects clearly labeled. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the essential behavioral outcome. Only the edge case of unsnoozing a non-snoozed thread is unaddressed.

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 0% and the description never mentions 'threadId', so the schema does not compensate. However, the single parameter is self-describing in context (the thread to unsnooze), so the practical gap is small rather than severe.

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?

States a specific verb ('cancel a snooze') and concrete outcome ('return the thread to the inbox now'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'snooze'. It doesn't explicitly name the inverse sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'cancel a snooze' — the agent can infer it applies to already-snoozed threads — but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus 'snooze', 'list_snoozed', or 'sweep_snoozed', and no mention of behavior for a non-snoozed thread.

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