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. It states the tool schedules or cancels removal, implying a mutation with future effect, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, confirmation mechanisms, or error handling. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral aspects for a scheduling tool.

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 three sentences that directly state the tool's functions. However, the third sentence 'Invoke this endpoint' is redundant and adds no value, slightly reducing efficiency. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (scheduling/canceling mailbox removal), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral nuances, success/error responses, or integration with sibling tools. For a mutation tool with significant implications, more context is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not mention any parameters or add semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain which parameters are relevant for scheduling vs. canceling). It relies entirely on the schema for 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: 'schedule the removal of mailboxes on the next renewal' and 'cancel a previously scheduled removal.' It specifies the verb ('schedule removal'/'cancel') and resource ('mailboxes'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'remove_mailboxes_instantly_19455787e0' beyond the implied timing difference in the name.

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 scheduling removal versus canceling, but does not specify prerequisites, when to choose this over instant removal, or any other contextual usage rules. The presence of a sibling tool for instant removal suggests a need for clearer differentiation.

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