Meme MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves an email but doesn't describe what information is returned (e.g., headers, body, attachments), error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or performance aspects (e.g., rate limits). This is inadequate for a read operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a specific email by ID'), making it immediately scannable and easy to parse. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., email object structure), error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., how to obtain an email ID). For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'emailId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or source of the ID). Given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific email by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-emails' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single email. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'get' entails (e.g., fetching metadata, content, or both), which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'get-emails' or 'search-emails'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an email ID from another operation) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk retrieval). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.