archived.listList the tenant's archived (expired but recoverable) mailboxes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'expired but recoverable' domain context but does not disclose further behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or tenant scoping beyond the word 'tenant's.'
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a useful parenthetical clarifying what 'archived' means. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 parameterless list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It omits potential pagination or ordering details, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of structured annotations.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter gaps to fill. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter explanation is necessary.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('archived mailboxes'), and it clarifies the domain term with 'expired but recoverable.' This makes it easy to tell apart from archived.get, archived.delete, archived.reactivate, and mailboxes.list.
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 clearly implies this tool is for listing archived mailboxes, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as mailboxes.list. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative references are given.
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.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.