Add an email provider
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>",
"kind": "<kind>"
},
"name": "add_provider"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| args | No | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| command | No | ||
| transport | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic add action and gives no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or potential overwriting of existing providers.
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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. This is more under-specification than appropriate conciseness, as no detail is provided to support invocation.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and any schema descriptions, the one-sentence description is completely inadequate. It does not explain parameters, return values, or behavioral context, leaving a 7-parameter tool nearly unusable.
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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the 7 parameters. The enums for 'kind' and 'transport' are not explained, and the roles of 'name', 'url', 'command', 'args', and 'env' are entirely opaque.
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 the action ('Add') and the resource ('email provider'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_provider and list_providers. It is specific about the tool's core function, though it does not elaborate on scope.
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and sibling context, which is insufficient.
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.