Reset the last run timestamp to reprocess emails from a specific date or default to 7 days ago. Specify an ISO 8601 time or account label to control which mailbox's processing history is cleared.
마지막 실행 시각 초기화 또는 특정 시각으로 설정합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| set_to | No | ISO 8601. 비우면 7일 전 | |
| account_label | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It states it resets or sets a time, but does not explain the consequences, such as affecting future email checks, whether the operation is reversible, or if it only applies to a specific account. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.
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 filler. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical context. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'last run' means, the effect of account_label, or the default behavior when set_to is empty (which is only in the schema). Given the tool's role among siblings, more context is needed.
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 schema describes set_to (ISO 8601, empty means 7 days ago) but account_label has no schema description. The tool description mentions neither parameter, adding no meaning beyond the schema. With 50% schema coverage, it fails to compensate for the undocumented account_label.
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 action (reset or set the last run time) and the resource (the timestamp). It is distinct from sibling tools which handle accounts, mails, and mailboxes, so an agent can differentiate. However, it doesn't explain what 'last run' refers to, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it affects scheduling or that it can be scoped per account. No context is given for when a reset is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.