Zapmail MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool updates a workspace name and includes prerequisites (ID correctness, name uniqueness), which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the update is reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences: it states the purpose, provides prerequisites, and includes a call-to-action ('Invoke this endpoint'). Each sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core function. The call-to-action is slightly redundant but doesn't significantly detract from 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some prerequisites but omits critical context: it doesn't explain how to structure the update request (e.g., using 'body' parameter), what the response looks like, error scenarios, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool with rich schema but no other structured data, more comprehensive guidance 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 schema already documents all 7 parameters (e.g., method, path, body). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond implying that workspace ID and new name are involved, but it doesn't map these to schema parameters like 'pathParams' or 'body'. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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: 'update an existing workspace's name.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('workspace'), and field ('name'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_new_workspace_13489947e0' or 'retrieve_all_workspaces_13489896e0' beyond the update action.

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 some usage guidance by stating prerequisites: 'Make sure the workspace ID is correct and that the new name does not conflict with another workspace in your account.' This implies when to use it (for renaming workspaces with valid IDs and unique names). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., create_new_workspace for new workspaces), leaving usage context partially implied.

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