Lists sender email addresses explicitly permitted by the environment configuration, helping you verify which aliases can send messages from the FudanMailBox account.
List sender addresses explicitly allowed by environment configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey useful behavioral context — the values come from environment configuration rather than user data, and 'explicitly allowed' frames it as an allowlist — which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it says nothing about permissions required, whether the list can be empty, or any rate/scope limits.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, and the operative noun (sender addresses / allowlist) is front-loaded after the verb. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument listing tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. Still, for a tool whose central concept ('sender aliases' as distinct from the description's 'sender addresses') is slightly ambiguous, the description could have clarified the concept or its relationship to send_message. Adequate but with a visible gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-argument semantics to document; per the rubric, a parameterless tool defaults to a 4 baseline. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.
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 gives a clear verb ('List') plus resource ('sender addresses explicitly allowed by environment configuration'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from every sibling tool in the set — none of the others deal with allowed-sender configuration. It stops short of the 5 bar only because it does not explicitly contrast itself with any related sibling.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer this is a read of configured sender allowlist entries, but nothing tells it under what circumstances it should call this versus, say, list_contacts or capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.