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 indicates a destructive action ('remove') and supports bulk operations, but lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether removal is irreversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with significant impact.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and bulk capability. However, the second sentence 'Invoke this endpoint' is redundant and adds no value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, auth needs), expected outcomes, error handling, and does not compensate for the absence of structured safety information, leaving critical gaps for safe agent invocation.

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, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond implying bulk removal, which might relate to 'body' or 'query' parameters but is not explicitly linked. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'instantly remove one or more mailboxes from the system' with 'bulk removal' support. It specifies the verb ('remove'), resource ('mailboxes'), and scope ('one or more' with 'bulk'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_mailboxes_on_next_renewal_13490521e0', which likely removes mailboxes at a different time.

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 mentions 'bulk removal' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to related tools such as 'remove_mailboxes_on_next_renewal_13490521e0' or 'delete_dns_records_14109023e0', 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.