Zapmail MCP Server

Does 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 only states to 'use this endpoint' and 'invoke this endpoint,' offering no insight into whether this is a read/write operation, authentication needs, side effects, rate limits, or expected outcomes. This is inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters and potential mutative actions.

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?

While brief, the description is under-specified and repetitive ('Use this endpoint... Invoke this endpoint.'), failing to convey necessary information efficiently. It lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on tautological statements instead of earning its place with actionable details.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'connect domain to Zapmail' means, what the tool does behaviorally, or what to expect upon invocation, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to operate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'method' with enum, 'path' for API override). The description adds no additional meaning or context about parameters, such as which are essential for connecting a domain, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 'Use this endpoint to connect domain to Zapmail. Invoke this endpoint.' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool's name/title ('Connect Domain with Zapmail') without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'connect_domain_with_zapmail_13521006e0'), making it vague about what 'connect' entails operationally.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools (like the similar 'connect_domain_with_zapmail_13521006e0'), leaving the agent with no basis for selection.

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