Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archiware MCP

Archiware MCP

by mnott
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

notify_test

Checks whether P5's SMTP server accepts connections and returns log evidence; set confirm:true to also send a host-MTA test mail to operatorMail, validating only the host path.

Instructions

P5 has no test-mail command. Checks that P5's SMTP server accepts connections from the P5 side and shows the log evidence; with confirm:true also sends one test mail via the host MTA to operatorMail (config only), which proves the host path, not P5's.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "notify_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to actually run; without it only the plan/commands are returned

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default dry-run behavior, that a real mail is sent only with confirm:true, the recipient source (operatorMail from config), and an important scope limit – the test proves the host path, not P5's. It does not describe failure modes or the exact response contents beyond 'shows the log evidence'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is information-dense with no filler, but the single semicolon-chained sentence is hard to parse and front-loads a somewhat cryptic premise ('P5 has no test-mail command'). Splitting the dry-run vs confirm:true distinction into its own clause would improve scanability without adding length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter diagnostic tool with a side effect and no output schema, the description covers the meaningful behavior: what is checked, what is returned as evidence, what the confirm flag changes, and the limit of what the test proves. Only failure/error reporting is left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the consequence of confirm:true (one test mail via the host MTA to the configured operatorMail) rather than restating the schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete operation: verifying that P5's SMTP server accepts connections from the P5 side and surfacing the log evidence, with an optional real test mail. The opening 'P5 has no test-mail command' frames why the tool exists, which distinguishes it from a plain status check, though the wording is indirect rather than a clean verb+resource statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It does specify the two modes (inspect-only by default, send a real mail with confirm:true), which is a form of when-to-use guidance. But it never states when an agent should choose this over notify_status or notify_set, nor any prerequisites such as whether operatorMail must already be configured.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools