Test an existing IMAP account connection using its stored credentials. Validates connectivity and returns folder and message counts to confirm the account is working.
Test an existing account connection without re-entering credentials. Validates IMAP connectivity and returns folder count and message count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes | Account ID to test |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the operation is a connection test, does not require re-entering credentials, and produces folder and message counts. It does not detail failure modes or whether a network connection is established, but it gives a clear behavioral picture.
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?
Two concise sentences lead with the purpose and then the output. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no filler or redundant restatement.
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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and return values (folder count and message count). It could mention expected behavior on failure, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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% and the sole parameter is described as 'Account ID to test'. The description adds the nuance 'existing account connection', which slightly reinforces that the ID must refer to an existing account, but it does not materially expand beyond the 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?
Description clearly states a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('existing account connection'), and specifies what the test validates (IMAP connectivity) and what it returns (folder count and message count). This distinguishes it from sibling account-management tools like imap_list_accounts or imap_connect.
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 phrase 'existing account connection' and 'without re-entering credentials' clearly conveys when this tool is appropriate: for testing already-configured accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.