Send task completion notification emails via QQ to a specified recipient, including task title, result, and optional details.
发送任务完成通知邮件到指定邮箱
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| details | No | 详细信息（可选） | |
| recipient | No | 收件人邮箱（可选，默认使用配置中的邮箱） | |
| start_time | No | 任务开始时间（可选，格式：YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss） | |
| task_title | Yes | 任务标题 | |
| task_result | Yes | 任务结果（如：成功、失败、完成等） | |
| project_name | No | 项目名称（可选，用于邮件标题，默认使用 mcp-mail-notifier） | mcp-mail-notifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the external side effect of actually sending an email but omits whether this requires configured credentials, whether delivery is synchronous, whether it is retried on failure, and what the tool returns. The wording '完成通知' (completion notification) also undersells that task_result can carry failure states.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a side-effect-bearing tool rather than being wasteful.
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 tool that performs an external, irreversible action (sending email) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover configuration prerequisites, failure behavior, or return expectations that an agent needs to invoke it safely.
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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the recipient concept ('指定邮箱') and adds no format, default, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb (发送/send) and resource (任务完成通知邮件/task-completion notification email) with a clear target (指定邮箱). It is distinguishable from siblings like set_task_start_time and format_duration, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not state prerequisites (e.g., that mail configuration must exist) or any condition under which the agent should prefer a different tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.