qq_mail_list_unreadList unread QQ Mail messages read-only, returning mailbox and UID for each so you can read a specific email without changing read status.
以只读方式列出 QQ 邮箱的未读邮件摘要，不会将邮件标记为已读。返回 mailbox 和 uid，可用于读取指定邮件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 最多返回的邮件数量 | |
| mailbox | No | 邮箱文件夹，默认 INBOX | INBOX |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: it will not mark messages as read, which is the key side-effect concern for a mail listing tool. It omits pagination and rate-limit behavior, keeping it below a 5.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the read-only guarantee and then the return value; every clause carries information and there is no padding.
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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (mailbox and uid) and their downstream use. The main remaining gap is any statement about result limits or paging, though limit is covered by the schema.
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 both limit and mailbox are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format or defaulting information beyond that, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource with scope: '以只读方式列出 QQ 邮箱的未读邮件摘要' (list unread QQ mail summaries read-only). The 'unread' qualifier naturally separates it from qq_mail_read and qq_mail_search, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of the top mark.
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?
It gives a clear usage context and a workflow pointer: the returned mailbox and uid '可用于读取指定邮件', implicitly routing the agent to qq_mail_read. It does not, however, state when to prefer qq_mail_search or any exclusions, so it stops at clear context without explicit routing rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.