Skip to main content
Glama

mail_list_awaiting_reply

Read-only

Identify unanswered sent emails that need follow-up. Lists one message per recipient, sorted by wait time, so you know who to chase next.

Instructions

List messages the owner sent that nobody has answered yet, one per person, longest waiting first, to find follow-ups.

Use when: the owner asks who has not replied or what to chase. Not for received mail the owner has not answered (use mail_search_messages with unanswered_only=true) or for writing the follow-up (use mail_reply_to_message). Parameters: both optional; no folder is taken, the Sent folder is found automatically.

  • days (omitted = 21) counts back whole calendar days from today, date only; the same window bounds the sent mail and the answers searched for. Mail sent before it is never listed, even if unanswered.

  • limit (omitted = 20) cuts only the awaiting list; total still counts everyone waiting. There is no offset: when total exceeds 50, lower days to see the more recent ones.

  • Out-of-range values are clamped silently, not refused (days 1-90, limit 1-50). A larger days reads more headers in every folder, so it is slower. Behavior:

  • read-only; headers only, nothing marked read.

  • A sent message is answered when a message in another folder references it (In-Reply-To or References) or a recipient wrote after it; Drafts, Trash and Junk are not checked.

  • Only the latest message to each person counts; the owner's own and no-reply or notification addresses are left out. Returns: {folder, uidvalidity, days, total, returned, awaiting, complete}.

  • Each awaiting item has uid, to, subject, sent, days_waiting and last_seen_from_them (left out if they never wrote in the window).

  • uids are in that Sent folder: read with mail_get_message, passing folder and uidvalidity.

  • An empty awaiting means nothing waits; complete=false lists not_read folders where an answer may be missed. Errors: a Sent folder that cannot be found (check mail_list_folders).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLook at mail the owner sent in the last N days (1-90).
limitNoMax messages to return (1-50).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "additionalProperties": true,
      -  "title": "mail_list_awaiting_replyDictOutput",
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  2. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world, and the description goes well beyond them: headers only, nothing marked read, the precise definition of 'answered' (In-Reply-To/References or later reply), that Drafts/Trash/Junk are skipped, one message per person, exclusions for no-reply/notification addresses, silent clamping, and a slower-read cost for larger days. It also names the error case and the recovery tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then segmented into Use when / Parameters / Behavior / Returns / Errors. Given the non-obvious reply-detection and windowing semantics, nearly every line carries operational information; there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape ({folder, uidvalidity, days, total, returned, awaiting, complete}), per-item fields, how to consume uids (mail_get_message with folder and uidvalidity), the meaning of an empty awaiting, and complete=false semantics. Error handling is also covered.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (defaults and ranges), yet the description adds semantics the schema lacks: days counts whole calendar days date-only and bounds both the sent mail and the searched answers, mail before the window is never listed even if unanswered, limit cuts only the awaiting list while total still counts everyone, there is no offset, and out-of-range values are clamped (days 1-90, limit 1-50). This is meaningful value beyond the structured fields.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('List messages the owner sent that nobody has answered yet, one per person, longest waiting first') and explicitly distinguishes itself from mail_search_messages with unanswered_only and from mail_reply_to_message. An agent can identify the tool without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'Use when: the owner asks who has not replied or what to chase' plus two named exclusions with the exact alternative tool and parameter ('Not for received mail the owner has not answered (use mail_search_messages with unanswered_only=true) or for writing the follow-up (use mail_reply_to_message)'). Nothing is left to inference.

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