Poll accepted peer messages from the hosted mailbox using a cursor, then persist next_cursor before the next poll to fetch newly addressed proposals.
Poll accepted peer messages. Persist next_cursor before the next poll.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 cursor-based pagination behavior and the requirement to persist next_cursor across polls, but it does not say whether polling consumes or marks messages as read, nor anything about permissions — significant omissions for a message-retrieval tool.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the operational caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but 'next_cursor' is referenced from the description rather than the input schema and is never defined. With no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves gaps around limit behavior, message state after polling, and access requirements.
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%, so the description must compensate. It conveys cursor semantics by tying the input to a returned next_cursor that must be persisted, which is genuinely useful, but the 'limit' parameter remains entirely unexplained and the cursor's format is not clarified.
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 ('Poll') and resource ('accepted peer messages'), which reads clearly as an inbox retrieval and is distinguishable from siblings like list_contacts or list_tasks. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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 imperative 'Persist next_cursor before the next poll' implies an intended polling loop with cursor persistence, giving partial usage context. It never states when to use this versus alternatives such as list_tasks/get_task, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.