Retrieve selectable and nonselectable QQ Mail folders to inspect mailbox structure locally, supporting read-only review without mailbox changes.
List selectable and nonselectable folders.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'selectable and nonselectable' hints that folders carry a selectability attribute, but nothing is said about pagination, ordering, or hierarchy depth.
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 with no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
For a trivial, parameterless, read-only listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to adequate, but it never describes what a returned folder looks like or what the selectability flag means to a caller.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (list folders) and even narrows the scope to two categories of folder. It is easily distinguished from the mail-oriented siblings, though the 'selectable vs nonselectable' distinction is left unexplained.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no indication of what a caller does with the result (e.g., feeding folder IDs into another tool). Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.