imap_finderLook up IMAP server settings (host, port, encryption) for a given email provider. Use this to find the correct IMAP configuration for services like Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imap_provider_name | Yes | The email provider name to look up, e.g. gmail, outlook, yahoo |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (host, port, encryption) and confirming it's a lookup operation. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences accomplish both purpose and usage guidance. No wasted words.
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 read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what data it returns, and when to use it. It doesn't mention error handling or unknown providers, but that's not critical for this simple 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?
Schema coverage is 100% as the parameter description explicitly documents the provider name and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('look up') and resource ('IMAP server settings'), clearly stating what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like imap_check, but the focus on configuration settings rather than connectivity testing distinguishes it implicitly.
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 gives clear usage context with 'Use this to find the correct IMAP configuration' and provides example providers. It does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 has a specific purpose, but dns_lookup overlaps with cname/mx/ptr/txt lookups since it returns all record types. The 'check' tools validate records while 'lookup' tools merely retrieve them, which helps differentiate, but an agent could still confuse e.g., txt_lookup with dkim_check.
Naming follows a noun_action pattern (e.g., bimi_check, mx_lookup) but uses inconsistent actions: check, lookup, finder, and generate. 'imap_finder' and 'smtp_finder' break the noun_verb pattern, and there is no uniform verb choice.
With 16 tools, the count is at the upper edge of reasonable for an email deliverability domain. The individual DNS checks and server tests are justified, but some consolidation (e.g., a single lookup tool with record type parameter) could reduce redundancy.
Covers critical authentication checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, BIMI), blacklist checks, DNS lookups, and SMTP/IMAP connection tests. Missing DKIM generation and deeper reputation tools, but core deliverability verification is well-covered.