Retrieve active IMAP account settings without exposing passwords, including server capabilities and detected Sent folder. Useful for verifying email account configuration.
Mostra a configuração ativa (sem senha), capacidades do servidor IMAP e a pasta de Enviados detectada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by stating that the password is not exposed and that the tool reports IMAP capabilities and the detected Sent folder, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose return formatting, potential errors, or any other behavioral caveats.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the three key information categories. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 parameterless informational tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the three outputs the agent can expect. It could be richer by describing the return format more precisely, but the core information needed to select and invoke the tool is present.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because there are no parameters to document.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: it shows the active account configuration, IMAP server capabilities, and the detected Sent folder. The verb 'Mostra' names a specific action on a specific resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from its siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_folders or read_email. No prerequisites, exclusions, or typical call context are provided, so an agent must infer that this is the general account-info read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.