Lists the account's agent mailboxes with limit and offset pagination so you can review available mailboxes for transactional email management.
List the account's agent mailboxes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items to return | |
| offset | No | Items to skip |
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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior, defaults for limit/offset, or result ordering. A one-line read listing is low risk, but the description adds no behavioral context at all.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than crisp completeness.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain pagination expectations and what a mailbox record includes. For a list tool in a crowded mailbox toolset, one sentence leaves the agent guessing about defaults and result shape.
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 description coverage is 100% ('Items to return', 'Items to skip'), so the two pagination parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning such as default page size or max limit, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (list) and resource (agent mailboxes) scoped to the account, which is enough to distinguish it from create_mailbox and read_mailbox_messages by verb alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings or explain what an 'agent mailbox' contains, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this versus create_mailbox, read_mailbox_messages, search_mailbox, or list_mailbox_threads. The agent must infer the correct entry point from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.