Retrieve all snoozed emails with their id, status, and wakeAt time. Filter by status to rediscover a lost email id needed for canceling a snooze.
List every snoozed email, including its id, status, and wakeAt — use this to rediscover the id needed for cancel_snooze if it was lost with the conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter to one status. Omit to list everything. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the scope ('every snoozed email') and the return fields (id, status, wakeAt), but does not cover other behavioral aspects like pagination or potential large result sets. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that fronts the action and key details. It includes the purpose, the scope ('every'), the return fields, and the primary use case without any fluff.
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 with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers what the tool returns (id, status, wakeAt), the optional filtering (status), and a concrete use case. This is complete enough for an agent to know when and how to use it.
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 only parameter 'status' is fully documented in the schema with an enum and description. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema's own description, so it relies on the schema for parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is given because schema coverage is 100%.
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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'snoozed email', and the specific fields returned (id, status, wakeAt). It also distinguishes the tool's purpose by linking it to rediscovering the id needed for cancel_snooze, making it distinct from sibling tools.
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?
The description gives an explicit when-to-use: 'use this to rediscover the id needed for cancel_snooze if it was lost with the conversation.' It does not provide direct when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative list tools, but the use case is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.