IMAP Mini MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the path delimiter requirement and suggests using list_folders first, which adds useful context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like permissions needed, error conditions, or whether creation is recursive for nested paths.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidance with examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the basic operation and key usage guidance, but doesn't address what happens on success/failure, whether parent folders must exist, or other edge cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter. The description adds some value by providing examples ('INBOX/Receipts' or 'Projects/2024') and mentioning the server delimiter, but doesn't significantly expand beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'Create' and resource 'new folder', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_draft' or 'update_draft', which would require 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Create a new folder') and when to use an alternative ('Use list_folders first to discover the delimiter if unsure'). It also gives context about path formatting with server delimiter.

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