remove_from_blacklistRemove from opt-out list
Unblock a number. If they opted out themselves, marketing sends still need a fresh consent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| msisdn | Yes | Phone number in E.164. Example: +48533991881. A 9-digit number without prefix is treated as Polish. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / msisdn / descriptionPrevious value: -"Numer telefonu w formacie E.164, np. +48533991881. Numer 9-cyfrowy bez prefiksu = Polska."New value: +"Phone number in E.164. Example: +48533991881. A 9-digit number without prefix is treated as Polish."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds meaningful nuance: it warns that removing from the opt-out list does not automatically grant consent for marketing if the user self-opted-out. This is valuable behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, and it does not contradict them.
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 compact (two sentences) and front-loads the core action ('Remove from opt-out list') before adding the consent caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or extraneous 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. It adds the critical consent caveat, which is the only behavioral nuance an agent might miss. Nothing essential is omitted.
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 input schema provides complete coverage (100%) for the only parameter (msisdn), including a format example and a note about Polish numbers. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, so it falls at the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.
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 ('Remove from opt-out list') and a clear resource ('a number'), which unambiguously conveys the tool's function. It also uses the synonym 'Unblock a number' for reinforcement. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_to_blacklist.
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 a caveat about consent after removal ('If they opted out themselves, marketing sends still need a fresh consent'), which hints at appropriate usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context on when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
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.