list_alertsList the account's deliverability alerts (score drops, check failures, blocklist listings). Defaults to open alerts only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max alerts to return (default 50). | |
| resolved | No | 'false' = open alerts only (default), 'true' = resolved only, 'all' = both. | |
| severity | No | Filter by severity (default 'all'). |
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 and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no new behavioral traits: 'Defaults to open alerts only' repeats schema info, and the alert-type examples are semantic context, not behavior. No side-effects, rate limits, or authentication details are disclosed beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action, gives concrete examples, and notes the default filter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a simple list tool with three fully documented parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete enough. It provides an overview of alert types and the default open-alert behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: 'Defaults to open alerts only' restates the resolved parameter default, and the alert-type examples don't clarify any parameter semantics. The schema already fully documents limit, resolved, and severity.
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's function: listing the account's deliverability alerts, with concrete examples of alert types (score drops, check failures, blocklist listings). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_domains or get_deliverability_report.
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 clear context that this tool lists alerts and defaults to open alerts, implying it's for viewing alerts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is well-scoped relative to siblings like resolve_alert.
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.