Forward an existing email to new recipients, with optional custom body and original attachments included. Specify folder and UID to redirect the message.
Encaminha um e-mail (corpo em texto + anexos originais) para novos destinatários.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| uid | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| folder | Yes | ||
| save_to_sent | No | ||
| include_attachments | 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, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the body is text and attachments are original, and implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't state whether the original email is modified, whether sent copies are saved (though save_to_sent param exists), or any side effects. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
A single, concise sentence in Portuguese that front-loads the core action and key behavior. It's efficient, though it could add routing guidance 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain how the email is identified (folder/uid), how recipients are formatted, or what happens after forwarding. An agent would need to infer too much.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that body is text and attachments are original, which maps to body and include_attachments, but it doesn't explain folder/uid identification, to/cc format, or save_to_sent behavior. With 7 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a substantial 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Encaminha' = forwards) and resource (an email with text body + original attachments) to new recipients. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like send_email and reply_email, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 implies usage context (forwarding an existing email) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus send_email or reply_email. The sibling list shows these alternatives exist, but the description doesn't route the agent to them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.