Read a mailbox's sending policy, including open/allowlist recipient rules, content policy, approved recipients, and pending approvals, without changing settings.
Read this mailbox's sending policy: recipient policy (open or allowlist), content policy, approved recipients and pending approval requests. Does not change anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The trailing 'Does not change anything' largely restates readOnlyHint rather than adding new behavioral context (no auth/permission requirements, no rate limits, no indication of what happens when no policy is set).
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 the resource named first, the returned contents enumerated, and no filler. Every clause carries information.
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 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description's enumeration of the returned policy fields (recipient policy, content policy, approved recipients, pending requests) is exactly the information an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Nothing material is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately spends its words on what is returned instead.
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+resource ('Read this mailbox's sending policy') and enumerates the four things it surfaces (recipient policy, content policy, approved recipients, pending approval requests), which implicitly separates it from the similarly-named voidmail_sending_limits. It stops short of explicitly naming or routing against that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for policy state, but there is no when-to-use framing and no mention of alternatives such as voidmail_request_recipient (for pending requests) or voidmail_sending_limits. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.