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 mentions the tool removes a pending domain connection request, implying a destructive mutation, but does not specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The phrase 'Invoke this endpoint' adds no behavioral insight. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its 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 brief with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one instructing invocation. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence ('Invoke this endpoint.') is redundant and adds no value, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it is appropriately sized but could be more streamlined.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive operation), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about what happens upon removal (e.g., confirmation, effects on the system), but it does not, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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, with all 7 parameters documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'method' for HTTP override, 'path' for API path). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing description compensation.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Remove a domain connection request which is pending,' which includes a verb ('Remove') and resource ('domain connection request') with a qualifier ('pending'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_catch_all_emails_13521079e0' or 'remove_email_forwarding_13521037e0,' which also remove resources but target different entities. The description is clear but lacks sibling distinction, making it adequate but not specific enough for a higher 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a pending request), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_domain_connection_requests_18247843e0' for checking requests first. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when to invoke it, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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