Fetches an agent's inbound envelopes with signature and context verification, returning messages capped to a token budget so agents can process requests safely.
Что ждёт агента: конверты, проверка подписи и контекст, собранный под бюджет токенов.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that envelopes involve signature verification and that context is assembled under a token budget, which is useful behavioral color, but it does not state read-only vs. mutating semantics, auth requirements, pagination, or side effects.
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?
The single sentence is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it spends its words on an oblique framing instead of stating the tool's action or scope.
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 re-explained, but for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations the description leaves the agent unable to determine purpose, usage, or parameter behavior. It is far short of complete.
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 both parameters ('agent', 'limit'), and the description adds no information about what these parameters mean or how they shape the result. Nothing compensates for the undocumented schema.
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 describes what the agent will receive (envelopes, signature verification, token-budgeted context) rather than stating what the tool does or returns as an action on the 'inbox'. No clear verb+resource framing, and it does not distinguish soma_inbox from siblings like soma_route or soma_send.
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 indication of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. The phrase 'what awaits the agent' implies a pull/inspect operation but never states the condition for using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.