RadMail MCP

report_need

Flag awkward, missing, or slow behavior in RadMail to improve per-agent learning without exposing email content.

Instructions

Tell RadMail something was awkward, missing, or slow. Folds into per-agent learning (call STRUCTURE only — never email content).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "report_need"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes	What was awkward, missing, or slow.
`agentId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'folds into per-agent learning' and adds a crucial constraint: 'call STRUCTURE only — never email content.' This is useful transparency, though it does not detail side effects or permissions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, direct, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, and the key constraint ('never email content') is included without unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple 2-parameter feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a critical behavioral boundary. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though it does not explicitly state what happens after reporting.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'note' parameter is described in the schema, but 'agentId' has no schema description. The description's phrase 'per-agent learning' gives a hint that agentId identifies the agent, but it does not fully elaborate on parameter usage or format. At 50% coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves the optional parameter somewhat ambiguous.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific action: 'Tell RadMail something was awkward, missing, or slow.' This is a distinctive feedback/reporting tool, and the sibling list contains no other tool that serves this purpose, making it easily distinguishable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool ('something was awkward, missing, or slow') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. It gives enough context for a straightforward feedback tool, but lacks a 'use this when' statement.

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

Deploy Server