mailbox

list_postal_threads

Read-onlyIdempotent

List physical-mail threads that group inbound mail context, human review, and outbound sends. Use this to understand which inbound items and outbound documents belong to the same business workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of threads to return (1-100).
`offset`	No	Number of threads to skip for pagination.
`status`	No	Optional thread status filter.
`include`	No	Optional expansions. Add events to include inbound/outbound timeline references.
`category`	No	Optional category filter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Postal mail workflow threads plus pagination.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 27, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Postal mail workflow threads plus pagination.",
+      "properties": {
+        "pagination": {
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "description": "Pagination metadata for the current result set.",
+          "properties": {
+            "has_more": {
+              "description": "Whether another page is available.",
+              "type": "boolean"
+            },
+            "limit": {
+              "description": "Maximum records requested.",
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "offset": {
+              "description": "Records skipped before this page.",
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "total": {
+              "description": "Total matching records when available.",
+              "type": "integer"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "postal_threads": {
+          "description": "Physical-mail workflow thread records.",
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "description": "One returned record.",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "postal_threads",
+        "pagination"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedMay 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description needn't repeat those. The description adds context about the thread grouping semantics, explaining that threads tie together inbound mail and outbound documents. It doesn't disclose specific behavior like pagination or default sorting, but those are covered by the schema and output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, and both sentences contribute: one defines what the tool does, the other explains its purpose. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, 5 optional documented parameters, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and use case. It lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions but those are not essential for a list operation with good schema support.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to elaborate on them. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given the high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists physical-mail threads and explains their function of grouping inbound context, human review, and outbound sends. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_inbound_mail and list_outbound_mail, which focus on individual items rather than workflow grouping.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to understand which inbound items and outbound documents belong to the same business workflow.' This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mailbox tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resources and actions, forming clear list/get pairs for outbound mail, inbound mail, and postal threads. The main ambiguity is between get_facility_messages and list_facility_conversations, which both target the same Austin HQ conversation, and get_mailbox versus list_inbound_forwarding_addresses are closely related address lookups.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern with familiar verbs like get, list, send, cancel, create, update, and propose. There are no mixed naming conventions or vague generic names.

Tool Count3/5

19 tools is within the 16-25 range that feels heavy for a single-domain MCP server. The broad outbound/inbound lifecycle, threads, facility messaging, MAILBOX.md, usage, and webhook support justify much of the count, but a few tools such as the facility conversation list/get pair could reasonably be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core physical mail workflow well: test and real outbound sends, cancellation, inbound forwarding and retrieval, postal threads, facility communication, MAILBOX.md sync, usage, and webhooks. Minor gaps exist around webhook inspection/removal and direct document download, but these are unlikely to cause agent dead-ends in the main workflows.

Resources

Need Help?