ws_mailbox_listRetrieve mailboxes associated with a hosting service by providing the hosting ID. Use this tool to list all mailbox accounts on a specific hosting plan.
List the mailboxes on a hosting service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | No | Account id, or the literal "self" for the authenticated account. Defaults to "self". | self |
| hostingId | Yes | Hosting id or uuid the mailbox belongs to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering, or error conditions), so it meets the minimum but adds no extra transparency.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the operation without any filler.
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 list tool with two well-documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description is adequate. However, it omits any mention of the return format or potential pagination, which could be helpful but is not strictly required for such a basic list operation.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clear verb ('List'), a specific resource ('mailboxes'), and a scope ('on a hosting service'). It distinguishes this from sibling ws_mailbox_get by implying a collection operation, and the name itself is unambiguous.
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 implies usage: to list mailboxes for a hosting. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use ws_mailbox_get for a single mailbox'), leaving the routing decision to inference from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.