Add a new email configuration by specifying inbound and outbound server details, credentials, and SSL settings.
Add a new email configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| inbound_ssl | Yes | ||
| inbound_host | Yes | ||
| inbound_port | Yes | ||
| inbound_user | Yes | ||
| outbound_ssl | No | ||
| outbound_host | No | ||
| outbound_port | No | ||
| outbound_user | No | ||
| inbound_password | Yes | ||
| is_outbound_equal | Yes | ||
| outbound_password | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no additional description, the tool's behavior is entirely opaque. It does not mention side effects, validation rules, uniqueness constraints, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving the agent to guess.
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, terse sentence, which is concise but lacks structured information. It does not front-load critical details or follow a pattern that helps an agent quickly understand the tool's purpose and requirements.
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 tool with 12 parameters and 7 required fields, a one-line description is severely incomplete. The agent gets no information about parameter relationships, necessary credentials, or expected outcomes, making it difficult to use correctly without external knowledge.
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?
None of the 12 parameters are described in the tool description, and the input schema provides no explanations. The description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage, so an agent cannot determine the meaning or requirements of fields like inbound_password or is_outbound_equal.
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 action ('Add') and the resource ('email configuration'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, delete, and send. However, it provides no detail on what constitutes an email configuration, so it's not fully informative.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies creation, there is no explicit context about prerequisites, interactions with other email tools, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.