Retrieve a paginated list of accessible CRM inboxes to inspect available inboxes for conversation handling and routing.
Lista caixas de entrada acessíveis com paginação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Página, começando em 1. Mantenha o mesmo limite entre páginas. | |
| limit | No | Máximo de registros retornados por página (1 a 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond them: results are permission-scoped ('acessíveis') and the response is paginated. It stops short of describing ordering, total counts, or page-exhaustion behavior, so a 3 is right.
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 with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the tool has room for one more clarifying clause.
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 simple: zero required params, full schema coverage, rich annotations, no output schema. Against that low bar the description is adequate, but it never indicates what an inbox record contains or how results are ordered, leaving the agent to discover the shape of the response by calling it.
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% and both parameters (page, limit) are fully documented with defaults and bounds in the schema. The description's 'com paginação' merely echoes that, adding no syntax or interaction detail (e.g., what happens when page exceeds the last page). Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lista caixas de entrada') plus the scope qualifier 'acessíveis' and the pagination behavior. The resource is distinct from every sibling (contacts, agents, conversations, messages), so an agent can route on the noun alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'Acessíveis' hints at permission scoping but the agent must infer what makes an inbox accessible and what to do when the list is empty or truncated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.