Apple Mail MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It establishes read-only nature via 'Get' and 'Returns' verbs, documents default values (30 days), and describes output format ('Formatted statistics report'). However, it omits safety confirmations, rate limits, or whether statistics are real-time vs cached.

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?

Well-structured docstring format with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Information is front-loaded with the purpose statement. Minor filler ('comprehensive') but overall efficient use of space for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Adequate for the complexity: documents all parameters (compensating for empty schema), explains the scope conditional logic, and provides a high-level return value description (sufficient since output schema exists). Could improve by mentioning error conditions or data freshness.

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 fully compensates by documenting all 5 parameters with rich semantics: examples for 'account' ('Gmail', 'Work'), valid enum values for 'scope', conditional usage rules for 'sender'/'mailbox', and special value semantics for 'days_back' (0 = all time).

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?

States specific action ('Get') and resource ('email statistics and analytics') clearly. The term 'comprehensive' hints at broad capability, but the description does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling analytics tools like 'get_top_senders' or 'get_inbox_overview'.

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?

Provides implicit usage guidance by mapping parameters to specific scopes (e.g., 'sender' for 'sender_stats' scope), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_top_senders' or search functions. No 'when not to use' guidance provided.

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