list_mailboxesLists an account's temporary email addresses, newest first, with message counts to help agents track which mailboxes received mail.
List the account's addresses, newest first, with their message counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of addresses to return. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| more | Yes | ||
| mailboxes | Yes |
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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering ('newest first') and that counts accompany each entry, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination, truncation, or how the open-world remote fetch behaves.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and appends the two useful qualifiers. Nothing is redundant, though the sentence is thin enough that it leaves obvious questions (pagination, filtering) unaddressed.
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?
With an output schema present, return-value shape needn't be described, and the one optional parameter is fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is the absence of any usage context against sibling list tools, which is minor for a simple read.
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% for the single optional 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 100), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline here.
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 ('List the account's addresses') and adds scope detail (ordering, message counts). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_messages or list_domains, and it renames the resource from 'mailboxes' (tool name) to 'addresses', which creates mild terminology drift.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as list_messages or list_domains. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the enumeration entry point for mailbox resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.