Test email configuration by sending a test email
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "test_email_config"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test_email | No | Email address to send test email to (optional, defaults to from_email) |
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. It does disclose the key side effect (sending a test email), but it does not explain potential side effects, failure modes, or what happens after the email is sent. The return value and error behavior are unaddressed, so transparency is moderate.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and method. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description does not explain what the tool returns or how success/failure is indicated. This absence is notable since no output schema exists, leaving the agent without guidance on interpreting results.
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%, with the 'test_email' parameter fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already covers the parameter, the 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 the specific verb 'Test' with the resource 'email configuration' and clarifies the method ('by sending a test email'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_email_config (which might not send) or send_email (which sends real emails).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action, and no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without context on when to select this over check_email_config or send_email.
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.