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 filtering via pagination and search, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the response format. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 main purpose and includes two sentences that add some context without redundancy. It avoids unnecessary details, but the second sentence could be more structured to clearly separate filtering options from the invocation instruction.

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 complexity of 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return values, error conditions, or how parameters like 'method' or 'path' override default behavior, leaving critical gaps for effective tool 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, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering with pagination and search, but does not explain parameter usage or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most 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 action ('retrieve a list of all workspaces') and resource ('workspaces associated with the authenticated user'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'retrieve_all_domains', which suggests similar retrieval functions but for different resources, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 'list_workspaces' or other retrieval tools in the sibling list. It mentions filtering capabilities but does not specify scenarios or prerequisites for invocation, leaving usage context implied at best.

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