Retrieve all emails from the database, with optional filtering by configuration name and limiting the number of results.
Get all emails from the database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Email configuration name (optional) | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default: 1000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get all emails' — it does not disclose the return format, whether results are paginated, whether authentication is required, or what 'all' means relative to filters. A 'get' operation is implicitly read-only, but nothing confirms that or elaborates on side effects.
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 sentence with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant phrasing. For conciseness, this is exemplary.
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?
The tool is simple (two optional params, no nested objects, no output schema), so the minimal description is not catastrophic. But given a large sibling set and zero annotations, it is incomplete: an agent has no guidance on scope differences from search_emails/get_emails_by_date, no behavioral expectations, and no indication of output shape. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves real gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (name and limit) with descriptions. The description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter load and the description does not need to compensate.
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 has a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('emails from the database'), so purpose is clear. However, with siblings like search_emails, get_emails_by_date, and read_email present, it does not differentiate itself at all — an agent cannot tell whether 'get_all_emails' overlaps with 'search_emails' or returns a different shape.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many email-related siblings (search_emails, get_emails_by_date, read_email). Given the sibling set, an agent must guess which tool fits the intent, since the description neither states the conditions for use nor names alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.