mail_config_statusDisplays public mail configuration without passwords and lists missing variables so agents can verify setup and troubleshoot cPanel mail accounts.
Muestra la configuración pública del correo, sin la contraseña, y qué variables faltan.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns public configuration without the password, and it reports which variables are missing. These are useful security and output-content details beyond the annotations.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes only relevant details. No waste or repetition.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: public configuration, omitted password, and missing variables. It could optionally mention the response shape, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameter semantics to clarify in the description.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Muestra la configuración pública del correo' (shows public mail configuration). Adds key details about excluding the password and indicating missing variables. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_connection or mailbox_status, but the resource focus is clear.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_connection or mailbox_status. Implied usage is to inspect mail configuration, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.