newsletters_listThis account's newsletters with their pages and subscriber counts, and the email service they go out through. Free.
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": "newsletters_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about what data is included and that the call is free, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or volume, which matters for a list tool with no output schema.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates contents. 'Free.' is terse and earns its place as cost context, though it reads as a fragment.
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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the full safety profile, the description covers the essential detail an agent needs: what entities are returned and what fields accompany them. Only pagination/volume behavior is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics to clarify and the description appropriately does not invent any.
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 verb and resource (this account's newsletters) and enumerates what is returned: pages, subscriber counts, and the email service. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like newsletters_list_issues and newsletters_subscribers, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
Usage is only implied by the list semantics; there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or routing to related tools such as newsletters_subscribers (for subscriber detail) or newsletters_list_issues. The 'Free.' note hints at cost considerations but is not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.