Create an email alias that forwards incoming messages to one or more destination addresses, simplifying mail management by routing multiple addresses to a single inbox.
Create an e-mail alias that forwards to one or more destination addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain_name | Yes | ||
| destinations | Yes | Destination addresses | |
| email_address | Yes | The alias address, e.g. 'sales@example.be' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotenceHint=false. The description adds the useful forwarding behavior ('forwards to one or more destination addresses') but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as duplicate alias handling, propagation delays, or permission requirements. It does not contradict 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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the core behavior with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.
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 simple create operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits the relationship between domain_name and email_address and gives no indication of return values or what happens if the alias already exists. An agent could invoke it correctly with the schema alone, but there are still 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 coverage is 67%, with email_address and destinations already documented. The description adds the forwarding relationship between the alias and destinations, which helps clarify destinations semantics, but domain_name remains undocumented in both the schema and description, and the description does not explain that the alias belongs to the given domain.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('e-mail alias') and adds the defining behavior: forwarding to one or more destination addresses. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like combell_mail_zones_aliases_update, combell_mail_zones_aliases_delete, and combell_mail_zones_catch_all_create.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' in context with sibling aliases_update and aliases_delete, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or warn against creating an alias that already exists. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.