Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cfu_mail

cfu_mail

by MrShurukan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

connection_check

Read-only

Verify an account's real IMAP login without exposing credentials, so you can confirm mail access before reading or sending messages.

Instructions

Check real IMAP login without returning credentials.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>"
    },
    "name": "connection_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-network-read profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior: credentials are not returned, which matters for an authentication probe. It does not say what a failure looks like (exception vs. boolean) or whether it performs an actual network round-trip with latency/auth-failure implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail rather than being a model of denseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a 'check' returns (success/failure signal, error shape) and it does not. With an ambiguous parameter and an unaddressed sibling, the definition is under-specified for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter account_id, and the description says nothing about it. It is left unclear whether account_id is an internal account handle, an email address, or a stored-account key, so the agent gets no help beyond the schema's bare type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check real IMAP login'. That is clearly distinguishable from CRUD-style siblings like read_message or send_draft. However, it never mentions the sibling soap_connection_check, so an agent cannot tell which connection check applies to which protocol.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 versus soap_connection_check, and no prerequisites such as needing a stored account or an active session. The agent must infer the trigger condition (validating credentials before other calls) on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools