Fetch mail for a specified account immediately and apply its processing rules, bypassing the scheduled wait. Runs in background; track progress via list_tasks with task_type mail_fetch.
Fetch mail for one account now and run its rules, instead of waiting for the schedule. Runs in the background; see list_tasks with task_type mail_fetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing that it 'runs in the background' and how to track progress via list_tasks. It does not detail potential side effects of running rules, but the annotations already cover the basic safety profile. The added context is meaningful beyond 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?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential behavioral context (background execution and monitoring) in the second sentence. 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the asynchronous nature, and how to check results. It does not explicitly define the id parameter, but the meaning is inferable from the tool name and context. Minor gaps remain, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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% (the schema only defines 'id' as a number with no description). The tool description implies 'id' refers to the mail account but does not explicitly state 'the ID of the mail account to process.' Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it only loosely implies the meaning. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 a specific action: 'Fetch mail for one account now and run its rules.' It names the resource (mail account) and distinguishes it from the scheduled behavior. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_mail_accounts or test_mail_account, which have different purposes.
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 explicitly states when to use it ('instead of waiting for the schedule') and directs the agent to list_tasks for monitoring. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives (e.g., test_mail_account) or conditions under which it should not be used. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.