Skip to main content
Glama

list_inboxes

Read-only

Browse existing mailsocket inboxes to reuse one or find its ID for other tools. Read-only, paginated; pass cursor or limit to page through results.

Instructions

List inboxes owned by the API key, one page at a time.

Use this to see what inboxes already exist (e.g. to reuse one instead of
creating a new one, or to find an ``id`` to pass to the other tools) — it
never creates, modifies or deletes anything. Returns one page (server
default page size is 25 rows); pass ``cursor`` (from ``next_cursor`` in
the previous response) to fetch the next page, or ``limit`` (1-100) to
change the page size. This tool does NOT auto-fetch every page.

Side effects: none; read-only. Makes one network call to the mailsocket
API (``openWorldHint``).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
cursorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations it discloses the non-obvious trait that the tool does NOT auto-paginate, plus page size, cursor chaining, and the single network call. This is exactly the context an agent needs to loop correctly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose then pagination mechanics; each sentence carries information. Minor redundancy in restating 'Side effects: none; read-only' which the readOnlyHint annotation already covers.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (one page, server default 25 rows, next_cursor). Pagination behavior, safety profile, and parameter meanings are all covered for a two-param read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and does: cursor is defined by its origin ('from next_cursor in the previous response'), limit by its range (1-100), and the default page size (25) is given. Both parameters gain concrete semantics the schema lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List inboxes owned by the API key, one page at a time.' That is clearly distinguishable from create_inbox, delete_inbox, and the message-oriented siblings without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use it ('to reuse one instead of creating a new one, or to find an id to pass to the other tools') and rules out the alternative behavior ('it never creates, modifies or deletes anything'). The agent knows both the trigger and the boundary against siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.