Retrieve emails that failed permanently and remain in the dead letter queue, so you can inspect and troubleshoot delivery issues.
List emails that failed permanently and sit in the dead letter queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of items (default 50, max 200) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says items 'sit in the dead letter queue' but does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, whether results are read-only or reflect a snapshot, or what to expect when the queue is large — only the word 'List' implies a safe read.
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?
One sentence, zero filler, with the distinguishing qualifier ('failed permanently') placed before the queue name. Appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could front-load the scope even more sharply.
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?
For a single-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the 'what' but leaves out result shape, ordering, and the relationship to the retry/delete dead letter siblings. Adequate but clearly incomplete for an agent that must decide how to act on the results.
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% and the single 'count' parameter already documents its default (50) and max (200), so the description adds nothing on parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the lifting.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List emails') plus a clear qualifier ('failed permanently', 'dead letter queue') that separates it from the general list_emails sibling. It does not name the alternative tools explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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 'failed permanently' wording hints at when this is relevant (diagnosing delivery failures), but the description never states when to use this versus list_emails, retry_dead_letter, or delete_dead_letter. Usage is inferable from the queue name rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.