qq_mail_connection_statusCheck if a QQ Mail connection is configured and return the email address and configuration status without exposing the authorization code.
检查当前连接是否已配置，只返回邮箱地址和配置状态，绝不返回授权码。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it only returns the email address and configuration status, never the authorization code, which is a useful disclosure about output sensitivity.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, the returned data, and an explicit exclusion without any filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 simple read-only nature, the empty input schema, and the rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does and what data it returns. It could optionally clarify what 'configuration status' means (e.g., configured/not configured), but it is adequate.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. There are no parameter details to document, and the description appropriately does not discuss inputs.
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 checks whether the current connection is configured, using a specific verb '检查' (check) and resource '连接配置' (connection configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like qq_mail_read and qq_mail_search, which perform mail operations rather than status checks.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are any alternatives mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it versus the sibling mail tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.