Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aydu-mail-mcp

aydu-mail-mcp

by rafaga2469
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

check_connection

Verify IMAP connectivity and identify which mailbox would receive drafts without sending any messages.

Instructions

Verify IMAP connectivity and report which mailbox would receive drafts. Sends nothing.

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": "check_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the call is side-effect free and sends no mail. It says nothing about authentication prerequisites, latency, rate limits, or how a failure is surfaced (exception vs. error result), which matters for a connectivity probe.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler; the safety guarantee ('Sends nothing') is placed last as a decisive qualifier rather than buried. Every clause earns its place.

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 nullary, side-effect-free check with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the key return fact (the draft mailbox). The remaining gap is failure behavior and any auth requirement, which an agent would need in order to interpret a negative result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing parameter discussion that would not apply.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a specific resource ('IMAP connectivity') and adds what the caller learns ('which mailbox would receive drafts'). The closing 'Sends nothing' implicitly contrasts it with the save_draft sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description establishes a clear context for use (pre-flight check before drafting, plus discovering the draft mailbox) and 'Sends nothing' routes the agent here instead of save_draft when it only wants to test. It stops short of explicit exclusions or stating what to do if verification fails.

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