Adjust a mail zone's anti-spam protection by selecting none, basic, or advanced after checking allowed types, controlling email spam filtering strength.
Set the anti-spam level of the mail zone (none, basic or advanced). Check allowed_types on the mail zone first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| domain_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the requirement to check allowed_types, which hints at validation behavior, but does not describe side effects, return values, or failure modes. Given annotations cover safety, this adds modest context beyond them.
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 concise sentences, no redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by a necessary prerequisite. Every word 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 setter with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key prerequisite. It could mention error handling or return value, but these are less critical given the idempotent and non-destructive annotations. Overall, it's adequately complete.
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 0%, but the description adds meaning by listing the enum values and instructing to check allowed_types, which links the type parameter to the zone's allowed set. This compensates for the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema, though domain_name remains unexplained.
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 action (set), the resource (anti-spam level of mail zone), and enumerates the allowed values (none, basic, advanced). The mention of checking allowed_types distinguishes it from other mail zone operations, making the tool's specific role 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?
It provides a clear prerequisite: check allowed_types on the mail zone first. This implicitly instructs the agent to call mail_zones_get before setting. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the guidance on when to use this tool is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.