Skip to main content
Glama

kernel_agents_inbox_ack

Acknowledge finished office-inbox letters so the inbox sweeper stops returning them to your queue. Ack every completed message to prevent repeat handoffs.

Instructions

Acknowledge office-inbox letters you have finished handling. Unacknowledged letters are handed to you again by the inbox sweeper (up to 3 times), so ack every letter you completed.

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": {
      "message_ids": "<message_ids>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_agents_inbox_ack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idsYesInbox message ids (from kernel_agents_inbox)
__caller_agent_idNo[internal] injected by the agent executor when this tool is invoked from an agent run. Not meant to be set by external callers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses the inbox sweeper's re-delivery behavior (unacknowledged letters return, up to 3 times), which is exactly the consequence an agent needs to know. It does not cover idempotency, behavior on invalid/unknown message_ids, or whether acking is reversible.

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 sentences, no filler, and the payoff (re-delivery up to 3 times) is front-loaded immediately after the action statement.

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 two-parameter acknowledgment tool with no output schema, the definition covers action, trigger, and the cost of not acting. It omits what the call returns (e.g., count acknowledged) and mixed valid/invalid id handling, which are minor gaps here.

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 100% and the message_ids property already states it comes from kernel_agents_inbox. The description adds no format, batch-size, or partial-failure semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — 'Acknowledge office-inbox letters' — which is clearly distinct from reading them via kernel_agents_inbox. It stops just short of naming the sibling tool explicitly, but the action and object are unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear trigger for use: 'letters you have finished handling' and 'ack every letter you completed.' There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause or named alternative, but for a binary ack action the condition is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools