Apple Mail MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the three delivery modes and the HTML/plain text fallback relationship, but omits safety warnings about the irreversible nature of sending emails, rate limits, or attachment size constraints.

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 employs a standard docstring structure with clear Args and Returns sections, presenting information efficiently without redundancy despite the high parameter count. Every sentence provides necessary specification details not present in the schema.

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?

Given the high complexity (9 parameters, 4 required) and complete lack of schema annotations, the description provides sufficient detail for correct invocation by documenting all parameters and return behavior. It appropriately acknowledges the output without over-specifying, though it could benefit from mentioning error conditions or account validation requirements.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description comprehensively compensates by documenting all 9 parameters in the Args section, including format specifications (comma-separated values), concrete examples (account names, file paths), and semantic relationships between body and body_html.

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 opening sentence 'Compose and send a new email from a specific account' clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `create_rich_email_draft` or `reply_to_email`, and the term 'send' is slightly misleading since the 'draft' mode does not actually send.

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 documents the `mode` parameter options (send/draft/open), providing implicit guidance on delivery methods. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like `create_rich_email_draft` for draft creation or prerequisites like account configuration.

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