remove_suppressionRemove a suppression by id or email address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Suppression id | |
| No | Email address (alternative to id) | ||
| tenant | No | Remove the address (by email) from this tenant's own list. The tenant's external id (your id for that customer) or its Groundmail id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | True when the request completed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / tenantAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Remove the address (by email) from this tenant's own list. The tenant's external id (your id for that customer) or its Groundmail id",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — it does not say what the removal affects, whether it is reversible, or how it interacts with the tenant scoping.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, the description omits the tenant scoping dimension entirely, which materially changes what gets removed, and gives no usage context for a destructive operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, email and tenant fully, including the non-obvious tenant-list semantics. The description only restates the id/email selector and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Remove a suppression') and adds the selector form ('by id or email address'), so an agent can distinguish it from add_suppression and list_suppressions at a glance. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the add/remove/list distinction 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites such as required permissions. The only routing hint is the id-vs-email selector, which is really parameter information rather than usage context.
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.