Test SMTP and IMAP connections to verify email server functionality for sending and receiving messages.
测试邮箱服务器连接
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "test_email_connection"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| testType | No | 测试类型：smtp（发送）、imap（接收）或both（全部） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'test email server connection' and does not state whether it sends a probe email, checks authentication, modifies any state, or how results/errors are returned.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat under-specified, but as a concise statement it is clean and scannable.
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?
The tool is simple, but there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain what a successful test looks like, what happens when testType is omitted, or what underlying behavior is being verified. An agent would need more context to interpret the result correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the testType parameter already has a clear description and enum values, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately covers the meaning of smtp, imap, and both.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('test') and resource ('email server connection'), and the name aligns with that. It is distinguishable from siblings like send_email, get_recent_emails, and configure_email_server, though it does not mention the SMTP/IMAP scope until the schema is read.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as configure_email_server or setup_email_account. It also does not explain prerequisites, such as whether an email account must already be configured before testing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.