clickedu-mcp

get_inbox

Retrieves your Clickedu communications inbox so you can read messages from the communication module directly in your AI assistant while running your daily teaching workflow.

Instructions

Your communications inbox (Communication module).

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": "get_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, ordering, pagination, or whether it returns threads versus flat messages. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, but operational behavior (result limits, sort order, unread filtering) is entirely undisclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being under-specified, but the wording itself is clean and earns its place.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema, the description only needed to nail purpose and when-to-use — and it omits the latter entirely. Among many get_* siblings in messaging and scheduling, a one-clause description is not enough to route an agent correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither helps nor hurts here.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Your communications inbox" names the resource and implies a retrieval of messages, but the verb is implicit (only the tool name's "get" carries it) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_chat_contacts or list_message_recipients. An agent can guess it lists messages, but cannot tell exactly what an "inbox" contains versus a chat contact list.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_chat_contacts for contacts or list_message_recipients for addressing a send_message. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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