Retrieve all email folders and mailboxes from your METU Webmail account, including folder names, labels, and message counts, to organize and navigate your inbox.
List all available email folders and mailboxes in your METU Webmail account.
Returns folder names, user-friendly labels, and total/unread message counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it implies a side-effect-free read via 'List all available' but never states it explicitly, and says nothing about permissions or whether folders can change between calls. For a trivial no-parameter read, the implied semantics are adequate, but it stops short of explicit 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, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence enumerates return fields that the existing output schema already covers, making it mildly redundant rather than wasteful.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and for a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete. The only real gap is the missing when-to-use versus the sibling mailbox-status/listing tools.
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 there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is 100% and the empty schema matches the description's claim of a full listing.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('List all available email folders and mailboxes') and scopes it to a METU Webmail account, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_mailbox_status, which a zero-param folder lister plausibly overlaps with, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 never says when to call this versus get_mailbox_status, list_emails, or search_emails, nor does it state any precondition. For a tool whose sibling set contains another mailbox-status tool, that omission leaves real routing ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.