Mint a sandbox tenant token to test email operations and reply drafting in a safe environment, with no credentials or signup required.
Mint a FREE sandbox tenant token instantly — no creds, no signup. Most tools auto-provision for you, so you usually don't even need this. The response safety block restates the permanent BEC hard-stops.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Optional human label for the tenant. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool is free, requires no credentials or signup, and the response includes a 'safety' block that restates the 'permanent BEC hard-stops'. This gives the agent a better sense of side effects and output. However, it doesn't detail any potential side effects or error conditions.
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 is very concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key benefits. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function and convenience, the second provides usage guidance and response content.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, unrelated siblings), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what it does, when it's typically unnecessary, and what the response contains. No further context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'label' has a description). The tool description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool mints a sandbox tenant token with specific conditions ('FREE', 'no creds, no signup'), using a specific verb 'Mint' and a resource ('sandbox tenant token'). This distinguishes it from the sibling email tools, which all perform different functions.
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 gives explicit guidance on when not to use it: 'Most tools auto-provision for you, so you usually don't even need this.' It implies use is needed only when auto-provisioning isn't available, but it doesn't provide an explicit alternative or a clear 'use when' statement, so it's slightly short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.