get_email_accountCheck quota, usage, daily send limit, emails sent today, and suspended state for one MXroute mailbox by domain and username.
Returns quota, usage, daily send limit, emails sent today and suspended state for one mailbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name on the MXroute account, e.g. example.com | |
| username | Yes | Mailbox name (the part before the @, without the domain) |
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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what the read returns (quota, usage, daily send limit, emails sent today, suspended state), which matters because there is no output schema; it stops short of error behavior such as a missing mailbox.
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; every clause names a returned field the agent needs because no output schema exists.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials, and enumerating the response fields compensates for the absent output schema. Only failure/missing-mailbox behavior is unaddressed.
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 100%, and both required parameters are documented there with patterns and examples (domain 'example.com', username as the part before the @). The description adds nothing about parameter formats or how domain/username compose, so the baseline 3 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 (returns) and resource (one mailbox) plus the exact fields returned: quota, usage, daily send limit, emails sent today, suspended state. The 'one mailbox' scoping implicitly separates it from list_email_accounts, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling get_email_usage, which overlaps on the 'usage' concept.
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, and no mention of alternatives such as list_email_accounts (bulk) or get_email_usage. The agent must infer from the singular 'one mailbox' phrasing that this is a per-mailbox lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.