list_jobsList the account's bulk verification jobs, most recent first, with their status, progress, and summary. Optionally filter by status and paginate. Use this to find past jobs and their job_ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max jobs to return (1-100, default 50). | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0). | |
| status | No | Only return jobs in this status. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses ordering (most recent first), included fields (status, progress, summary), and that it lists jobs for the account. Adequate for a read-only list tool.
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?
Three sentences, all meaningful. First sentence states purpose, second mentions optional filters, third gives usage guidance. No fluff or repetition.
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?
Covers purpose, return fields, ordering, filtering, pagination, and intended use. Lacks details on response format (e.g., how progress/summary are structured), but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 parameters are well-documented. Description adds ordering context and usage guidance but no new parameter details beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states 'List the account's bulk verification jobs' with ordering and fields. Distinguishes from siblings like get_job_status and get_job_results by indicating it returns multiple jobs, though not explicitly.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to find past jobs and their job_ids' and mentions optional filtering and pagination. Provides clear context but does not state when not to use or alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Overlaps like verify_batch vs submit_bulk are explicitly differentiated by synchronous vs asynchronous behavior. Extraction, cleaning, verification, and management tools are well-separated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., register_account, verify_email, get_job_status). There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
15 tools cover the domain of email verification and account management without redundancy. Each tool fills a specific role—single verification, batch sync, bulk async, job polling, results retrieval, list cleaning, extraction, domain health, credit purchasing, and account management.
The tool set provides complete lifecycle coverage: account registration, usage tracking, credit purchase, email verification (single, batch, bulk with async), job management, list cleaning, email extraction, and domain health checks. No obvious gaps for the intended functionality.