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. Adds valuable performance context ('slower' for include_content) and migration metadata (replaces former tool). However, lacks explicit safety classification (though 'List' implies read-only), auth requirements, or rate limit disclosures.

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?

Uses structured docstring format (Args/Returns) with zero wasted text. Front-loaded with purpose statement. Migration note is contextually necessary. Each parameter description efficiently combines type, default, and behavioral notes.

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 5 optional parameters and existence of output schema, the description is complete. It documents all parameters, provides return value summary ('subject, sender, date, and read status'), and includes migration context from the deprecated tool. No gaps identified.

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% (only titles provided). The Args section fully compensates by documenting all 5 parameters with semantics, examples (e.g., 'Gmail', 'Work'), special values (0 = all), and performance implications. Essential for agent to understand parameter usage.

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?

Opens with specific verb ('List') + resource ('emails from inbox') + scope ('across all accounts or a specific account'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_recent_emails' by stating this tool replaces it and clarifies the migration path.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs the former tool: 'use account + max_emails to get recent emails from a single account.' This indicates the specific filtering pattern for targeted retrieval, though it does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like search_emails.

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