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 describes what information is retrieved but fails to mention critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and details, making it easy to parse and understand 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 retrieving API information with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, and return format, and does not compensate for the absence of annotations. This makes it insufficient for an agent to fully grasp the tool's context and usage.

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, clearly documenting all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationships between 'category' and 'endpoint' or the implications of the boolean flags. Thus, it meets the baseline score without adding extra value.

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 with specific verbs ('Get detailed information') and resources ('API endpoints, parameters, responses, and usage examples'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_api_endpoints' or 'get_api_scenarios', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest 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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection among siblings like 'search_api_endpoints' or 'get_api_scenarios'.

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