Diagnóstico de ENTREGABILIDAD de la cuenta (últimos 28 días): rebotes, quejas de spam, aperturas y salud del dominio (DNS). Devuelve un veredicto (sano/a_vigilar/en_riesgo) + acciones priorizadas. Úsalo antes de un envío grande o si los correos no llegan.
| 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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the time range, metrics analyzed, and return structure (verdict + actions). It implies read-only behavior, though not explicitly stated.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key terms (deliverability, 28 days, metrics, verdict, usage). Every word contributes value.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description explains the return value (verdict + actions). No parameters and clear scope make it complete for a diagnostic tool.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter meaning.
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 diagnoses account deliverability over the last 28 days, listing specific metrics (bounces, spam complaints, opens, DNS health). It is well-differentiated from sibling tools which focus on campaigns, lists, or subscribers.
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?
Provides explicit usage context: 'Use it before a large send or if emails are not arriving.' Does not list alternatives but usage is clear and actionable.
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.
