List letters with optional search and pagination to locate specific mail items and manage large volumes efficiently.
List letters with optional search and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of records to skip (default: 0) | |
| limit | No | Max records to return (default: 10, max: 100) | |
| search | No | Search filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey a read-only listing operation with search and pagination, but it omits details such as return shape, ordering, or search-field semantics. This is adequate but not rich.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core action is immediately clear.
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?
The tool is a simple list operation with optional parameters, and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe return values or pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults. It is adequate for a basic list call but leaves meaningful gaps.
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%, with skip, limit, and search already documented in the input schema. The description mentions search and pagination but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('letters'), and mentions optional search and pagination. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like postgrid_get_letter or postgrid_list_contacts.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only restates the operation and gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or pointers to sibling tools such as postgrid_get_letter for single-letter retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.