Create a mail alias to forward incoming email to a specified destination, ensuring messages reach the right inbox without additional mailboxes.
Create a mail alias
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | Alias params (server_id, source, destination, active) | |
| client_id | Yes | Client ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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. It only states that a mail alias is created, without explaining side effects, default values, permission requirements, or behavior on duplicate aliases.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple create operation, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested params object with four undocumented fields, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the alias parameters, expected results, or when to use the tool, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 both parameters at a basic level. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 'Create a mail alias' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core action immediately clear. However, it does not actively distinguish itself from sibling tools like mail_forward_add or mail_catchall_add, which are conceptually similar.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_forward_add or mail_user_add. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.