Get the email sending domain configured for an organization and its verification status (PENDING, VERIFIED, FAILED). Returns null if no domain is configured. Use email_domain_register to set one up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns null if no domain is configured and lists the possible verification statuses (PENDING, VERIFIED, FAILED). However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, though 'Get' strongly implies this.
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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds the null-return behavior and an alternative tool reference. Every sentence adds value, and there is 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?
The description is complete for a simple get tool: it covers what is retrieved, the return value in the absence of a configured domain, and directs users to a related tool. It does not explain the return format in detail, but since there is no output schema, the mention of verification status is helpful. Missing details like authentication are generic and not critical here.
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 parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions that the tool works 'for an organization', which partially maps to the required orgSlug, but it does not explain the apiKey parameter or clarify how to pass the orgSlug. This leaves the parameter semantics incomplete.
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 purpose: to retrieve the email sending domain configured for an organization and its verification status. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource (email sending domain), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like email_domain_register and email_domain_verify.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to fetch domain configuration and status) and points to an alternative (email_domain_register) for setting one up. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance given is sufficient for basic differentiation.
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.
Multiple parallel booking creation flows (booking_create, scheduling_book, public_booking_create) and session state transition tools (booking_update_status, lifecycle_transition) create ambiguity. While descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily select the wrong tool for a given task, especially with 111 tools to choose from.
Most tools follow a consistent domain_action pattern (e.g., client_create, service_update, comms_list_campaigns). Minor deviations include Spanish/English mixing (cierre_*, report_deuda_real) and a few noun-only names like org_summary, but the overall structure is predictable.
With 111 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for an MCP surface. Even for a broad service business domain, this exceeds reasonable limits and will overwhelm agents, making tool selection slower and more error-prone.
The tool surface is extremely thorough, covering org setup, services, providers, booking (internal/public/spec), finance, payroll, closing, disputes, clinical notes, treatment plans, and reporting. Gaps are rare and often intentional (e.g., no deliver via MCP, read-only treatment plans), so agents can complete most workflows end-to-end.