Replace an inbound routing rule to change how incoming email is matched, prioritized, activated, and delivered to a webhook.
Replace an inbound routing rule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Inbound route UUID | |
| pattern | Yes | Address pattern to match | |
| priority | Yes | Route priority | |
| is_active | Yes | Whether the route is active | |
| match_type | Yes | How to match the pattern | |
| webhook_url | No | Webhook URL that receives matched emails |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether the replacement is reversible, or what happens to fields such as webhook_url when omitted. The word 'replace' hints that unset optional fields may be cleared, but this is never confirmed.
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 with zero waste and the verb front-loaded, but at four words it is under-specified rather than efficient. The brevity leaves the operative semantics of 'replace' unexplained.
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?
This is a mutating tool with five required parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description never addresses the destructive implications of a full replacement or how the caller should supply the id. For a six-parameter write operation, far more context is needed.
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% and every parameter including the match_type enum is documented in the schema, so the description only needs to match that baseline. It adds no behavioral meaning beyond the schema – notably it does not explain why priority and is_active are required for a replace operation.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Replace an inbound routing rule'), and the verb 'replace' usefully signals full-overwrite semantics rather than partial patching. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_inbound_route or delete_inbound_route, but the name and verb pair make the operation identifiable.
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 tool versus create_inbound_route or delete_inbound_route, and no stated prerequisites such as needing the rule's id first or requiring list_inbound_routes to discover it. The agent must infer all of this from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.