Zapmail MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Delete DNS Record API Invoke this endpoint') without mentioning critical aspects like required permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or expected response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate and fails to inform the agent of risks or behaviors.

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, poorly structured sentence ('Delete DNS Record API Invoke this endpoint') that is both redundant and unclear. It lacks front-loading of key information and wastes space without adding value. While concise, it fails to communicate effectively, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does beyond its name, omits behavioral context, and provides no guidance on usage or parameters. Given the complexity implied by 7 parameters and the lack of structured support, this description fails to meet minimum requirements for agent understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, detailing all 7 parameters (e.g., method override, path, body). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or contextual usage. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles 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 'Delete DNS Record API Invoke this endpoint' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool's name and title without adding clarity. It fails to specify what resource is being deleted (e.g., specific DNS records by type or domain) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'remove_domain_connection_requests_18247913e0' or 'update_dns_records_13629370e0'. This lack of specificity leaves the purpose vague.

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. With siblings like 'check_dns_records_13521093e0' for verification and 'update_dns_records_13629370e0' for modifications, there is no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for deletion. This absence of usage instructions is a significant gap.

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