Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
allinbox

allinbox

by tomasbenavidez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_accounts

Read-only

Lists the email accounts available to search, helping you confirm which connected inboxes are queryable within allinbox.

Instructions

List the email accounts allinbox can search.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail, that the result is limited to accounts allinbox can actually search, but says nothing about whether disabled or unconfigured accounts appear or what the entries contain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-argument read-only listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The only gap is what an account entry looks like, which is minor given no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain, and the schema has nothing to compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("email accounts") with a scoping qualifier ("allinbox can search"), which distinguishes it from read_email, read_thread and search_all by being about account enumeration rather than message retrieval. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery call to run before searching or reading emails. There is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or which alternative to pick when the goal is message content.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools