get_snds_ip_statsReturn the latest per-IP reputation from Microsoft SNDS for the org's sending IPs: filter result (GREEN/YELLOW/RED), complaint-rate band, spam-trap hits, message volume, and current block status. Requires SNDS to be connected (see connect_snds / get_snds_status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description supplements this with the 'latest' temporal behavior, the specific data fields returned, and the SNDS connection requirement, adding value without contradicting annotations.
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 a single sentence with a colon-separated list of outputs followed by a short prerequisite clause. The main action is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaningful information with no filler.
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?
With no output schema present, the description fully enumerates the return fields (filter result, complaint-rate band, spam-trap hits, message volume, block status) and the necessary precondition. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, this is complete and self-sufficient.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description adds context that the data is for 'the org's sending IPs', clarifying that the no-parameter call operates on organization-level data, which aligns with the baseline 4 for parameter-less tools.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'per-IP reputation from Microsoft SNDS' and enumerates exact output fields (filter result, complaint-rate band, spam-trap hits, message volume, block status). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_snds_status, which relates to connection state.
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 explicitly states that SNDS must be connected and points to connect_snds / get_snds_status as references. It provides clear prerequisite context but does not offer explicit when-not-to-use guidance against related report tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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.
Tools have distinct purposes overall, but some minor overlap exists between get_domain and get_deliverability_score, as well as between list_scans and get_scan_job. However, descriptions clarify the differences.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_headers, check_blocklists, get_deliverability_score) with consistent snake_case, making it easy for an agent to predict tool names.
26 tools is slightly above the ideal range but appropriate for a comprehensive email deliverability service covering scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. The count feels justified.
The tool surface covers core deliverability workflows: scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, blocklists, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit add domain tool), but the scan_domain tool covers that use case.