list_inboundList inbound email received on workspace domains, newest first, with search by subject, sender, or recipient and pagination.
List email received on the workspace's inbound domains, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search the subject, sender and recipient. | |
| limit | No | Items per page (default 20, at most 1000). | |
| offset | No | Items to skip; the next page starts at offset + count. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering ('newest first'), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about result caps, pagination behavior, or whether results are scoped per authenticated workspace beyond the phrase 'workspace's inbound domains'.
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 that names the resource, its scope, and the sort order with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 read-only list tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema, the description covers what is listed and in what order. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't characterize what each returned item contains, but that is a minor omission for a listing endpoint.
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%, so q, limit, and offset are fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how q interacts with ordering or what the paging semantics are beyond what the schema already says.
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 (email received on the workspace's inbound domains), plus ordering (newest first). It implicitly contrasts with get_inbound (single item) and list_emails (outbound), but never names those siblings, so the differentiation requires inference.
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 scope phrase 'received on the workspace's inbound domains' implies when this applies, and the sibling get_inbound suggests single-item retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_emails or get_inbound, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.