yahoo-access

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

yahoo_check_auth

Verify IMAP login, and optionally SMTP, for one or all Yahoo accounts to troubleshoot access before use; returns per-account ok, stage, error, and hint fields.

Instructions

Preflight: verify IMAP (and optionally SMTP) login for one or all accounts.

Args: account: Account key from accounts.json, e.g. "personal" or "work". None = check all. check_smtp: Also verify SMTP login (default: IMAP only).

Returns a dict keyed by account name with ok/stage/error/hint fields.

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": "yahoo_check_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No
`check_smtp`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does reasonably well: it discloses the two verification scopes (IMAP only by default, SMTP optionally), the all-accounts case, and the return shape (ok/stage/error/hint). It omits side-effect/auth-persistence details, but for a non-mutating credential check this is solid coverage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by short Args and Returns blocks; every line carries information. The Returns block mildly duplicates the output schema, which is the only wasted space.

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 two-parameter, output-schema-backed preflight check, the description covers scope, defaults, and result structure adequately. Failure semantics (what 'stage' values mean) are left to the output schema, which is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it does: 'account' is defined as an accounts.json key with None meaning check-all, and 'check_smtp' is defined as also verifying SMTP with a stated IMAP-only default. Nothing needed to call the tool is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verify IMAP login (optionally SMTP) for one or all accounts. The 'Preflight' framing immediately separates it from all sibling mail-operation tools.

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?

'Preflight' clearly signals this should be run before other mail operations, and 'check all' vs single-account behavior is stated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to call it, but the context is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server