Retrieve a list of all emails currently in the inbox, returning only key metadata like subject and addresses without message bodies.
Returms a list of all emails currenly in the inbox. Result is a list of dict objects representing the email in the current inbox, returning only a subset of the email data (e.g. subject, to address, from adresses) and without returning the message body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (subset of fields, no message body), but omits whether this is a read-only operation, pagination/ordering behavior, rate limits, and auth requirements.
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?
The description is short but repeats the 'current inbox' framing across both sentences ('all emails currently in the inbox' / 'email in the current inbox'), and contains typos ('Returms', 'currenly', 'adresses') that reduce polish. It is front-loaded but mildly redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly does part of the job by describing the returned subset of fields and the absence of message bodies. However, missing pagination, ordering, and safety/read-only context leaves gaps for a listing tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Returns a list of all emails currently in the inbox'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like getEmailsById (single email) and the send/delete tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the list-all scope is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternative getEmailsById for retrieving a single email. Usage is only weakly implied by 'all emails in the inbox'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.