Retrieve received Skolemelding messages with previews, unread status, and attachment names to quickly review school communication without opening each message. Limit results as needed.
List received Skolemelding messages with previews, unread state, and attachment names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned field set (previews, unread state, attachment names) and the 'received' scope, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, limit behavior, or the read-only/safe nature of the call.
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 no filler; the returned-field enumeration is efficient. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter list tool.
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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and roughly what it returns. It is incomplete on the things an agent needs to call it correctly — the meaning/effect of 'limit' and pagination behavior.
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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it. Bounds and default exist only as bare schema constraints (1–100, default 30), so the description does not compensate for the missing pagination semantics.
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 ('received Skolemelding messages') plus the returned fields (previews, unread state, attachment names). It is implicitly distinguishable from get_message/get_attachment by being a bulk listing, but it never names those siblings or contrasts itself with them.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the inbox-browse step before calling get_message, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.