Send, receive, and manage email for AI agents with hardware attestation; call operation="readme" for documentation and available operations.
Email for AI agents -- send, receive, manage email with hardware attestation (mailpal.com). Call with operation="readme" for full documentation and available operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | Parameters for the operation | |
| operation | Yes | The operation to perform (call with "readme" for documentation) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions hardware attestation and a readme discovery path, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., sending email), or what 'manage' entails. For a tool that can send and mutate email, this is a significant gap.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the readme instruction. No wasted text, though the marketing-style 'Email for AI agents' phrase could be trimmed.
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?
This is a multi-operation gateway with a nested arbitrary `params` object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description defers nearly all operational detail to a readme call, leaving an agent unable to select or invoke specific operations without a preliminary discovery step.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the special `operation="readme"` value, but that is also stated in the schema, and it does not enumerate actual operations or clarify the arbitrary `params` object beyond what is already structured.
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 identifies the domain (email for AI agents) and broad actions (send, receive, manage) plus a distinguishing security feature (hardware attestation). However, it does not specify the actual operations available or distinguish this tool from the sibling `oneid`; the required `operation` parameter is only explained by pointing to a readme.
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?
It tells the agent to call `operation="readme"` for documentation, which is a minimal usage instruction. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.