IMAP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Mark emails as read') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the change is reversible, effects on email metadata, error handling, or confirmation of success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero waste—'Mark emails as read'—making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like side effects, error cases, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's correct invocation in a real-world context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Email UIDs' for 'uids', 'Mailbox name (default: current)' for 'mailbox'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining UID formats or mailbox naming conventions, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score.

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 'Mark emails as read' clearly states the verb ('Mark') and resource ('emails') with the specific action ('as read'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_unread' by specifying the opposite state, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other email-modification tools like 'archive_email' or 'flag_email'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing email UIDs from a prior fetch), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'mark_unread' or 'flag_email' for similar email-state operations.

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