Your own confirmed email state: {"email": str|null, "email_verified": bool}.
Reports YOUR account only. It never says whether some other address is
taken, and a pending (unverified) address shows as ``null`` — a
pending claim reserves nothing, so surfacing it would imply a hold you
do not have.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant nuance beyond annotations: it explains that it only reports the user's own account, that a pending (unverified) address returns null, and that this reserves no hold. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description clarifies the specific behavioral edge cases, making it highly transparent.
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 concise, using two short paragraphs. The first sentence presents the output format, and the second explains scope and edge cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
With no parameters and an existing output schema (context signals confirm), the description covers all necessary behavioral details: what it returns, scope limitations, and the null edge case. It is complete for this simple read-only tool.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not repeat schema information, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.
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 it reports the user's own confirmed email state, specifies the return format with field types, and distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_email_set by noting it never reports other addresses or verifies. The verb "reports" and resource "email state" are specific.
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 implies when to use (to check your own email status) by contrasting with other uses (never says whether another address is taken, pending shows as null). It provides context on interpretation but does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use.
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.
With 199 tools, each has a distinct purpose clearly described. Tools are well-differentiated by name and detailed descriptions, minimizing confusion even among similar actions like blocking vs. muting vs. hiding.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. There is no mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to parse.
199 tools is extremely high for a single MCP server. While the platform is feature-rich, this volume can overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. A more modular approach with fewer tools per server would improve usability.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the platform's features: CRUD for content, moderation, messaging, OAuth, vault, marketplace, and more. There are no obvious missing operations for the domain.