reply_messageReply to a cPanel email by UID, quote the original message, and mark it as replied; sending must be enabled and the user must explicitly ask.
Responde a un UID, cita el texto original y marca el mensaje como respondido. Exige MAIL_ALLOW_SEND=true y un pedido explícito de la persona.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| mailbox | No | Ruta exacta de la carpeta, por ejemplo INBOX o INBOX.Trabajo | |
| reply_all | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a configuration gate (MAIL_ALLOW_SEND=true) and two side effects (quoting the original, flagging the message as replied). It still doesn't say whether the reply is sent immediately or drafted.
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 no filler; the core action comes first, then the preconditions. Every clause carries information.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the preconditions and side effects are covered well enough to call it safely. The gap is parameter-level: mailbox selection and reply_all semantics are unexplained.
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 coverage is only 25% (only 'mailbox' is documented), so the description must compensate. It covers uid and the reply text implicitly, but says nothing about 'mailbox' or 'reply_all', leaving half the parameters undocumented in either place.
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 ('Responde a un UID') plus two distinguishing behaviors — quoting the original text and marking it as replied — which separates it from send_message and create_draft. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it misses the top level.
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?
Gives a clear precondition for invocation: the config flag MAIL_ALLOW_SEND must be true and the person must have made an explicit request. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it never contrasts with send_message or create_draft as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.