check_connectionVerify cPanel mail credentials by testing IMAP login and SMTP authentication without sending email, ensuring access before organizing messages.
Inicia sesión en IMAP y comprueba la autenticación SMTP sin enviar correo. Úsala antes de organizar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it authenticates (a login side-effect) and explicitly sends no email, which is useful. It does not say what happens on auth failure or what credentials/config it depends on, so it stops short of rich 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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, action first and the usage cue second. Every clause 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?
For a no-param, read-only connectivity probe with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention what the check returns (e.g. success/failure per protocol), but with no output schema that omission is minor.
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 takes zero parameters, so the description has nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. No schema gap is left unaddressed.
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?
States specific actions: logs into IMAP and verifies SMTP authentication, with the clarifying detail that no mail is sent. This distinguishes it from send_message and reply_message, though it does not distinguish it from the similarly-named sibling mail_config_status.
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?
"Úsala antes de organizar" gives a concrete when-to-use context, and "sin enviar correo" implicitly rules out the send path. However, no alternative tool is named for the case where the agent only wants config info (mail_config_status), so the comparison is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.