zeptomail_list_agentsList accessible ZeptoMail agents and retrieve their exact mailagent_key aliases, ensuring template operations use valid agent identifiers.
List accessible Agents in the ZeptoMail account. Returns each Agent name and exact mailagent_key (Agent alias). Always use the returned key for template tools; do not guess Agent identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that the tool returns exact mailagent_key values and warning against guessing identifiers, which goes beyond the annotation baseline.
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 no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then provides the essential output detail and a practical warning.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents: Agent name and exact mailagent_key. It also explains why this matters for subsequent template tools, making it complete for a simple list operation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than input semantics.
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 and resource: 'List accessible Agents in the ZeptoMail account.' It also clarifies the exact output value, the mailagent_key (Agent alias), and distinguishes this tool from the template-focused siblings.
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 gives a clear usage directive: always use the returned key for template tools and do not guess Agent identifiers. It doesn't name explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context makes the intended workflow clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.