Inxmail MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only') and return payload structure ('Returns the event type name, description, and configuration'). Could improve by mentioning error cases if ID not found, but adequate for tool selection.

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, each earning its place: (1) purpose, (2) return value, (3) usage guidance, (4) safety property. Well-structured with high information density and no redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure and operational constraints. No significant gaps given the tool's complexity level.

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% (eventTypeId is documented in schema), establishing baseline 3. The description implies the ID sourcing strategy ('use list_event_types to discover') but doesn't add parameter format constraints or examples beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('detailed configuration of a single event type') + scope constraint ('by its ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list_event_types by contrasting single-item retrieval against list discovery.

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 the precondition ('when you already have an event type ID') and names the exact alternative tool ('use list_event_types to discover available IDs'), providing clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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