Create an email forwarding rule for a Beget mailbox, sending messages from a domain address to another email. Use it to redirect incoming mail to an external inbox.
Включить пересылку на указанный адрес.
Args: domain: Домен mailbox: Имя ящика forward_mailbox: Email для пересылки
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| mailbox | Yes | ||
| forward_mailbox | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as idempotency, limits on number of forwards, or whether enabling a forward affects mail delivery. With annotations covering the safety basics, this is adequate but not rich.
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 main sentence is front-loaded and concise; the Args block is a minimal restatement of parameters. No wasted prose, though the Args section adds little value.
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 return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with no usage guidelines and thin parameter semantics, the description leaves the agent without enough context about side effects (e.g., overwriting existing forwards, effect on mail routing). Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% and the description only repeats the parameter names with short labels (Домен, Имя ящика, Email для пересылки). It does not clarify formats (e.g., whether domain includes scheme, whether forward_mailbox can be external). For a 3-param tool with zero schema coverage, the description should compensate, and it barely does.
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?
Description states a specific action ('Включить пересылку' = enable forwarding) on a specific resource (an email address), so the verb+resource are clear. It is not tautological. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like mail_forward_delete and mail_forward_list beyond the obvious 'add' semantics.
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, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the mailbox must already exist, or whether duplicate forwards are allowed). The reader must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.