List messages in a specified IMAP folder to check mail status and readiness. Set folder and limit to inspect mailbox contents.
Alpha mail status endpoint for listing an IMAP folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results. | |
| folder | No | Mail folder name. | INBOX |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.21Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: 'listing' weakly implies read-only, but there is no mention of pagination, return format, ordering, or folder-must-exist behavior. An agent gets minimal signal about what happens on invocation.
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?
A single short sentence is appropriately sized, but the front-loaded 'Alpha mail status endpoint' framing is noise that misdirects rather than informing. It is concise but not well-structured around the actual operation.
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?
No annotations and no output schema mean the description must explain behavior and results, and it does neither. For a list tool with defaults (limit=10, INBOX), an agent lacks the context needed to call it confidently or interpret the response.
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% and both parameters (limit, folder) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning such as default pagination behavior or folder-name semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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?
The verb 'listing' and resource 'IMAP folder' are present, so the core action is inferable. However, the lead phrase 'Alpha mail status endpoint' muddles the purpose (status vs. listing) and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like sc_mail_search or sc_mail_read.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus sc_mail_search (filtered retrieval) or sc_mail_read (single message). No prerequisites, no exclusions, nothing beyond an implied 'use this to list a folder'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.