Himalaya MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('List all folders/mailboxes') but lacks behavioral details such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'all' entails (e.g., recursive listing, depth). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details in a separate 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary words, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter info more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., listing scope, permissions) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps. It covers the basics but could be more complete for optimal agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the 'account' parameter: 'Account name. If omitted, uses the default account.' This clarifies the optional nature and default behavior, which is valuable beyond the schema's basic type and title. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for good 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('folders/mailboxes for an email account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'account_list' or 'envelope_list', which might list different resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as how it differs from 'account_list' or other listing tools. It mentions the default behavior for the 'account' parameter, but this is parameter-specific and not usage context. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are included.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.