Zapmail MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive information' but does not specify what that entails (e.g., format, depth, or limitations), nor does it address potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a read-only informational tool. It covers the basic purpose but does not address output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness for agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters with enums and defaults. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or affect the output. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get comprehensive information') and the target ('about supported export platforms, flows, and scenarios'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_export_scenario' or 'export_guidance', which might have overlapping or related functions, preventing 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, such as 'get_export_scenario' or 'export_guidance', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for decision-making, relying solely on the tool's name and description without comparative insights.

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