Verifies school email login and returns the total number of messages and unread count in the inbox. Use it to confirm connectivity and check for new mail.
验证邮箱登录并返回收件箱邮件总数和未读数。
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them by disclosing that the call performs a login/credential validation, not just a read, which is a behavioral trait the annotations do not convey.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the returned data with no filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values in detail, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is routing guidance versus the sibling status tool, which is minor for a zero-parameter connectivity check.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics to clarify or omit.
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 states a specific verb+resource: verifying mailbox login and returning inbox total and unread counts. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling school_mail_status, which likely overlaps in reporting mailbox state.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a connectivity/auth check to run before other mail operations — but no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives like school_mail_status is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.