lattice-mcp

lattice_update_smtp_config

Configure email delivery by updating SMTP host, port, credentials, sender info, and recipient list for the Lattice platform.

Instructions

Update the SMTP configuration

Tool call template

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": "lattice_update_smtp_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	No
`port`	No	Port as a string, matching the API
`enabled`	No
`password`	No
`username`	No
`from_name`	No
`from_email`	No
`recipients`	No	Comma-separated recipient list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full burden. It only says 'Update', which implies mutation, but fails to explain whether it replaces or merges settings, what happens to omitted parameters, or any destructive behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, resulting in under-specification.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides almost no context about use cases, effects, or parameter relationships.

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 low (25%), but the description adds no explanation for any of the 8 parameters. The schema only documents 'port' and 'recipients', leaving meaning of others unclear. Description should compensate but does not.

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?

The description states the verb 'Update' and resource 'SMTP configuration'. It is clear but does not distinguish from siblings like 'lattice_get_smtp_config' (retrieve) or 'lattice_test_smtp' (test).

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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions.

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

Deploy Server