Check SMTP server configuration and connectivity to ensure reliable email delivery. Identify configuration errors and connection failures before sending messages.
SMTP sunucu yapılandırmasını ve bağlantısını test eder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 not state whether this operation is read-only, what side effects occur, whether a network/SMTP handshake is performed, or what the result means. The one-line description covers purpose only.
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, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 zero-parameter tool, the core purpose is present, but the complete lack of output schema or behavioral detail leaves an agent uncertain about what a successful (or failed) verification returns. The description is adequate for simple invocation but not fully complete without any expected result guidance.
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 and the input schema fully covers them, so the description has no parameter details to add. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 action ('tests') and resource ('SMTP server configuration and connection'), clearly distinguishing this from the sibling email operations like check_inbox or send_email. An agent can understand what the tool does without opening the schema.
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 provided for when to use the tool, what preconditions are needed, or how it relates to alternatives. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'test', so an agent has no explicit decision rule for selecting it over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.