Update email configuration by specifying inbound and outbound server hosts, ports, credentials, and SSL flags, with an option to reuse the same settings for both.
Update 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, validation rules, or consequences (e.g., whether updating the config breaks active sessions).
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 extremely concise (one short sentence), which is efficient, but it lacks structure or elaboration that would aid understanding. It is minimal but not misleading.
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 description is incomplete; it does not mention what happens to outbound fields when is_outbound_equal is true, how to handle partial updates, or what the response indicates. No output schema exists, and the description provides no operational context.
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 or schema. The schema lists types and requiredness but provides no meaning, format, or usage examples, leaving the agent to guess.
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 'Update email configuration' provides a clear verb and resource, and the verb 'update' distinguishes it from add/delete/list siblings. However, it lacks specificity about which configuration aspects are affected, though the schema provides some context.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions mentioned, and no indication of required context (e.g., existing config ID).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.