email_permutationsGenerate common corporate email address variations from a first name, last name, and domain to identify likely email formats for a person.
Generate common corporate email address permutations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| last_name | Yes | ||
| first_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or output details. It doesn't contradict the annotations but also doesn't add value 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?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, which is concise and front-loaded. It efficiently states the purpose, but it is perhaps too terse to provide necessary context. It earns its place but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
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?
The tool has an output schema and annotations covering safety, so the description needn't explain those. However, it lacks usage guidelines and parameter details, which are important for correct invocation. The description is adequate for a simple read-only tool but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. The description mentions the three inputs implicitly by saying 'common corporate email address permutations,' but it doesn't explain the expected format, any restrictions, or the relationship between parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value.
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 states a clear action ('generate') on a specific resource ('common corporate email address permutations'). It distinguishes from siblings like domain_email_search by focusing on permutation generation, though it doesn't list examples of common permutations. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.