Sync all folders of a specified account or every account, then reindex the mail database. Waits up to 20 seconds; if still running, returns a status and allows you to retry or search the already indexed content.
Sync every folder of one account or all accounts now, then reindex. Waits up to 20 seconds; if the pass is still running it says so and you can call again or search what is indexed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key side effects (syncing every folder, reindexing) and the waiting behavior up to 20 seconds, including a note about what happens if the pass is still running. This is transparent for a maintenance 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?
The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary action and include essential behavioral details. No redundant information.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key scenarios: syncing, reindexing, waiting, and handling a still-running pass. It omits output details but those are not critical given the absence of an output schema.
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 'account' parameter is a string with no schema description, but the description text clarifies that it can target one account or all accounts. This partially compensates for the missing parameter metadata, though explicit per-parameter details would be better.
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's primary actions (sync folders and reindex) and scope (one account or all accounts). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or status, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage for forcing a sync/reindex and mentions waiting and retrying, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as search or status. Some guidance is present but could be more explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.