Displays the active email account configuration, IMAP server capabilities, and detected Sent folder for a given account.
Mostra a configuração ativa de uma conta (sem senha), capacidades do servidor IMAP e a pasta de Enviados detectada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / accountAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Account",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the password is not returned ("sem senha") and names the returned artifacts, which is genuine behavioral content. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions/auth requirements, or behavior when the account is unset (the parameter defaults to an empty string).
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?
One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned payload enumerated; no filler. It could carry one more clause on parameter format without becoming bloated.
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 read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description usefully previews the return payload (config minus password, IMAP capabilities, Sent folder). It is nonetheless incomplete on how to target an account and on the absence of authentication/error behavior.
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?
The single "account" parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a default of empty string. The description only implies "de uma conta" without explaining whether this is a name, email address, or index, nor what happens when the default empty value is used. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ("Mostra") and resource ("configuração ativa de uma conta"), and enumerates the extra content returned: IMAP server capabilities and the detected Sent folder. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_accounts, which an agent comparing the two must infer.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or exclusion statement, and no mention of the sibling tools that overlap most closely (list_accounts, list_folders). Usage must be entirely inferred from the noun "info".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.