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 states the tool provides 'AI-powered guidance' but doesn't clarify what that entails—e.g., whether it's advisory only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or returns structured vs. free-form output. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of providing 'AI-powered guidance' with four parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the nature of the guidance (e.g., format, depth), potential constraints, or how parameters influence the output, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 four parameters (goal, platform, mailboxes, filters) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get AI-powered guidance for export operations including best practices and recommendations.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('guidance for export operations'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_export_info' or 'get_export_scenario', which appear related, so it falls short of 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'export_mailboxes_13490737e0' or 'validate_export_request', leaving the agent without 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.