Create an email autoresponder in cPanel by setting the sender address, from name, subject, body, and response interval to automatically reply to incoming messages.
Create an email autoresponder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Autoresponse body text | |
| from | Yes | From name for the autoresponse | |
| Yes | Email address (user@domain.com) | ||
| subject | Yes | Autoresponse subject line | |
| interval | No | Hours between autoresponses to same sender | 24 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a mutation operation but does not explain side effects, permission requirements, or how the autoresponder behaves (e.g., interval between responses). The schema's 'interval' parameter hints at behavior but the description itself is silent, so the agent lacks 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, compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It fully leverages the schema for details, making it appropriately concise. Every word earns its place.
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?
Despite high schema coverage and a recognizable tool type, the description omits critical context: no output schema, no annotations, no usage scenarios, and no behavioral details. For an agent to invoke correctly, it needs to know that creating an autoresponder requires an existing email address and possibly domain setup. The minimal description leaves these gaps, making it insufficiently complete for a 5-parameter mutation tool.
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%, so all parameters are already documented individually. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles semantics; the description's minimal wording does not enhance or conflict with parameter understanding.
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+resource pattern ('Create an email autoresponder'), which clearly identifies the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_autoresponders' and 'delete_autoresponder' by the create verb. However, it lacks context on what an autoresponder precisely does (e.g., automatic replies), which would enhance clarity.
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 vs alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., email account existence, domain ownership). The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name and schema. This is a significant gap for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.