Generate a short-lived browser link to connect your Gmail or SMTP mailbox. Open it to complete binding without sharing credentials in chat.
Return a short-lived browser binding link for gmail or smtp. Ask the user to open it; never collect credentials in chat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes |
| 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 burden. It discloses that the link is short-lived and that credentials should never be collected in chat, which are meaningful behaviors. However, it does not explain what happens after the user opens the link, any side effects (e.g., creating a session, modifying account state), or how the link is consumed. The description is transparent about the immediate action but not the broader behavior.
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 two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a critical user-interaction instruction. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral instruction. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing account) or the shape of the returned link, but the output schema presumably covers return values. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in most contexts.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema provides no description for the 'provider' parameter. The description compensates by indicating the provider can be 'gmail' or 'smtp', giving concrete meaning to the parameter. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it does not enumerate exact allowed values or format details, so it is not exhaustive.
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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('short-lived browser binding link for gmail or smtp'). It distinguishes itself from sibling mail tools by focusing on connection/linking rather than drafts, sending, searching, or reading. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.
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 includes a usage instruction ('Ask the user to open it; never collect credentials in chat') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison with sibling tools or exclusion criteria are provided. The user-interaction guidance is useful but the selection context is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.