Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mcp_email_sendD
  1.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. '发送邮件' reveals nothing about authentication requirements (though parameters suggest SMTP credentials), rate limits, error conditions, what happens upon success, or any side effects. For a tool that sends emails with sensitive credential parameters, this lack of transparency is particularly problematic.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  While technically concise with just two characters, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information that would help an agent use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 7 required parameters (including sensitive credentials), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, authentication requirements, or any behavioral aspects. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata that would help an agent understand this complex email-sending operation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero information about parameters beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description '发送邮件' (send email) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'mcp_email_send'. It provides no additional specificity about what kind of email sending operation this performs, what resources it acts upon, or how it differs from other potential email tools. While the verb 'send' is clear, the description lacks any distinguishing details about scope or functionality.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool. There are no sibling tools mentioned, but the description doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for invocation. An agent would have no information about when this tool is applicable versus alternatives that might exist elsewhere.

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