Remove the inbox webhook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Mailbox bearer token (mi_live_...) returned when the inbox was purchased. Optional when the MCP request itself carries Authorization: Bearer. | |
| inbox_id | Yes | Inbox UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must independently disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Remove'), but does not reveal that the operation is destructive, irreversible, or requires specific permissions or an existing webhook. Key behavioral details are missing.
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 very concise—only three words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but lacks any explanatory context. While brevity is valued, it may be too terse for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope and implications.
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?
Considering the tool performs a destructive action (removing a webhook) and has no output schema, the description should clarify the effects (e.g., whether other webhooks remain) or return behavior. The current text is insufficient for complete understanding of the tool's behavior.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain how 'inbox_id' identifies the webhook or clarify the role of 'token' in authentication, but the schema already covers these adequately.
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 'Remove the inbox webhook' uses a clear verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('inbox webhook'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_webhook' and 'set_webhook', though it doesn't explicitly clarify that it targets the webhook associated with a given inbox.
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 (e.g., 'set_webhook' to configure a webhook, or 'delete_inbox' to remove the entire inbox). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for a valid token or an existing webhook, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and input schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: create vs. delete vs. get for inboxes and webhooks, list vs. get for messages, plus specific actions like extracting verification codes, replying, and retrieving service info. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_inbox, get_verification_code, set_webhook). The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire surface.
With 11 tools covering inbox lifecycle (create, read, delete), message retrieval and actions (list, get, reply, verification code), webhook management (set, get, delete), and service information, the count is well-scoped for a temporary email service.
The tool surface provides full CRUD for inboxes, message retrieval and reply, webhook management, and specialized operations like verification code extraction. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of managing disposable inboxes.
