test_connectionVerifies mailbox login settings and reports inbox counts to confirm Spacemail access is configured correctly; run during setup or after failures.
Logs in to each configured mailbox to check the settings work, and reports inbox counts. Use when setting up or when something fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Mailbox to test. Leave out to test all of them. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds the important nuance that this actually performs logins against each mailbox and reports inbox counts, i.e., it hits the network and returns diagnostic data. What it does not say is how per-mailbox failures are surfaced in the result.
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 tight sentences with zero waste: action and scope first, usage cue second. Nothing to trim.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description usefully discloses that inbox counts are returned and that failures are the signal of interest. For a one-optional-param diagnostic tool this is nearly complete; only the shape of per-mailbox results is left implicit.
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 100% and the single optional `account` parameter is fully documented there. The description's "each configured mailbox" only implies the default-to-all behavior already stated in the schema, so it adds little beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb (logs in to test settings) and resource (configured mailboxes) plus the output (inbox counts), which an agent can distinguish from check_inbox and list_mailboxes. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so not quite a 5.
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?
"Use when setting up or when something fails" gives a concrete triggering context, which is more than most definitions offer. It does not name alternatives (e.g., check_inbox for a single mailbox) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.