Enable SpamAssassin spam filtering to reduce unwanted email in your cPanel account.
Enable SpamAssassin spam filtering for the account
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": "enable_spam_assassin"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action ('Enable') without detailing effects, prerequisites, idempotency (what happens if already enabled), or whether any account settings are modified beyond the toggle. Minimal 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 a single concise sentence that communicates the action, resource, and scope without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the purpose.
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 zero-parameter toggle, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly names the feature and the target (account). The lack of return-value details is acceptable since no output schema exists, and the action is straightforward. However, it could mention idempotency or effects on existing email filtering, but given the simplicity, it's near complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
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 ('Enable') and resource ('SpamAssassin spam filtering') and clearly identifies the scope ('for the account'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like disable_spam_assassin and enable_spam_box, making the purpose immediately unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage (turn on SpamAssassin filtering), but it doesn't mention cases like when to use disable_spam_assassin or how it differs from enable_spam_box. Context is clear but lacks alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.