folders
Lists email accounts, their folders, index tags, last sync status, and errors.
Instructions
List accounts, their folders, index tags, and each account's last sync and last error.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Lists email accounts, their folders, index tags, last sync status, and errors.
List accounts, their folders, index tags, and each account's last sync and last error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating side effects. 'List' implies a read-only operation, so it is transparent about non-destructive behavior, but it does not explicitly rule out side effects or mention any state changes.
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 concise sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary details. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what data will be returned (accounts, folders, index tags, last sync, last error). It does not specify output structure or formatting, but the content is clear enough for basic usage.
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 has no parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resources returned: accounts, folders, index tags, and last sync/error info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'files' or 'show'.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'status', 'refresh', or 'show'. There is no mention of conditions or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.