ras_farm_get_mailboxRetrieve SMTP mailbox settings for Parallels RAS email notifications to verify configuration or troubleshoot delivery failures.
SMTP mailbox configuration used for RAS email notifications — server address, port, sender details. Use this to verify email notification settings or troubleshoot delivery failures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that — that this is the SMTP config backing RAS email notifications and that it is useful for diagnosing delivery failures — and discloses the shape of the returned data, which matters since there is no output schema.
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 compact sentence pair that front-loads what the resource is before the usage guidance. Every clause carries information; no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the key returned fields (server address, port, sender details) and gives a usage rationale, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool. It could be slightly stronger by distinguishing itself from the notifications sibling, but nothing essential is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. No parameter-related content is needed or missing.
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+resource ('SMTP mailbox configuration') and enumerates the returned content (server address, port, sender details), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby ras_site_get_notifications sibling, leaving some ambiguity about which one surfaces notification-related settings.
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?
Provides a clear when-to-use context: verifying email notification settings or troubleshooting delivery failures. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., ras_site_get_notifications) that would help an agent pick the right tool between overlapping notification-related resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.