Email SMTP/IMAP 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. While it mentions actions like 'move between folders' and 'mark emails as read', it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects such as whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens when conflicting parameters are provided (e.g., mark_read and mark_unread both true).

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 sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides helpful examples without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage scenarios.

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, mutation operations) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like how multiple state changes interact, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'move between folders' and 'flag important emails', which slightly reinforces parameter purposes but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage constraints.

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 with specific verbs ('change email states like read/unread, flagged, or move between folders') and identifies the resource (emails). It distinguishes from sibling tools like email_send or email_respond by focusing on modification rather than creation or response, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 implied usage context with examples ('organize your inbox, mark emails as read, archive messages, or flag important emails'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_respond or folders_list. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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