Inxmail MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses read-only nature and return values ('state details including any error information'). Does not mention rate limits or specific error codes, but covers essential behavioral traits for a lookup operation.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), workflow context (2), return values (3), safety profile (4). Front-loaded with action verb and appropriately sized for tool complexity.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter lookup tool without output schema. Compensates for missing output schema by describing return content ('state details including any error information'). Could further distinguish from check_email_delivery sibling, but adequately covers core functionality.

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 coverage is 100% with transactionId fully described. Description reinforces the workflow relationship ('returned from trigger_event') but does not add technical details (format, length) beyond the schema definition. Baseline 3 appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description provides specific verb ('Check') + resource ('processing state of a previously triggered event') and distinguishes from siblings by specifying this checks email states (accepted, sent, bounced, failed) and is used after trigger_event.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use after trigger_event') and implies workflow sequence. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives like check_email_delivery, though the trigger_event reference provides clear contextual guidance.

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