resend-verification[Public] Resend email verification code.
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": {
"email": "<email>"
},
"name": "resend-verification"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Agent 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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only notes '[Public]' (suggesting no auth), but does not state that the tool sends an email, whether it's safe to call repeatedly, or any rate limits. The description is severely lacking in behavioral context.
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 extremely short (one sentence) and front-loaded. While efficient, it could be improved by adding a brief usage note without losing conciseness. Score 4 for being concise but slightly under-informative.
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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimally complete but lacks key context such as behavior when email is already verified, side effects (email send), and potential errors. The empty annotations compound this deficiency.
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% with one parameter described as 'Agent email' and format email. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states 'Resend email verification code', which is a specific verb+resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'verify-email' (which verifies the code) and 'register-agent' (which might send initial verification).
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., user must have attempted registration) or when not to use it (e.g., if email is already verified). The context is implied but not explicit.
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.