List IMAP folders and report current discovered, excluded, and effective counts for the given email account.
IMAP 폴더 목록과 현재 누적 discovered/excluded/effective 현황을 반환합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_label | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a folder list plus cumulative status, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not clarify whether this contacts the IMAP server, how the status counts are computed, or what the output structure looks like.
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 with no redundant words. It efficiently states both the folder-list output and the additional status information, making it appropriately sized for a tool with only one parameter.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values and parameter usage. The unexplained terms 'discovered/excluded/effective' and the missing explanation of account_label leave significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema has no descriptions for the single required parameter 'account_label', and the tool description does not mention it at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to explicitly state that mailboxes are listed for the given account_label or what acceptable values are.
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 clear resource ('IMAP folder list') and an explicit return verb ('returns'), and it goes beyond the tool name by mentioning the additional cumulative status of discovered/excluded/effective mailboxes. However, the meaning of 'discovered/excluded/effective' is not explained, so the purpose is clear but partially ambiguous.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_accounts, get_watched_mailboxes, or check_new_mails. The description does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.