get_mailbox_infoRetrieve the current app mailbox account and its alias email addresses to confirm the actual sender address before sending mail.
查询当前应用邮箱账号与别名邮箱，用于确认实际发件人地址。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| provider | No | wecom | |
| alias_list | No | ||
| sender_email | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is queried (current app mailbox and aliases), and the verb '查询' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for this simple tool.
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 is a simple zero-parameter query and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers what is retrieved and a primary use case, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a note on read-only safety would make it fully complete given the lack of annotations.
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 there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (当前应用邮箱账号与别名邮箱/current app mailbox account and alias mailboxes), clearly identifying the tool's function. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling send_email tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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 phrase '用于确认实际发件人地址' (used to confirm the actual sender address) provides a clear use case context. It does not offer when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but it gives the agent enough to know when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.