Zapmail MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a destructive action ('Remove') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing forwarded emails. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence ('Invoke this endpoint.') is somewhat redundant but brief. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though could be slightly more 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex input schema with 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for a tool that performs a potentially significant domain configuration change.

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 schema documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying domain context, which is not detailed in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Remove catch-all email functionality') and resource ('for your domain'), specifying it stops forwarding of all emails to any address at the domain. It distinguishes from siblings like 'enable_catch_all_emails_13521061e0' by indicating the opposite action, though not explicitly named.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It mentions 'Invoke this endpoint' but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to tools like 'remove_email_forwarding_13521037e0' or 'enable_catch_all_emails_13521061e0'.

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