list_inbox_placement_testsList recent seed-list inbox-placement tests for the org (most recent first) with their status and Inbox/Spam/Missing scores.
| 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?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing the ordering ('most recent first') and the response structure ('status and Inbox/Spam/Missing scores'). It does not mention pagination or limits, but the read-only and idempotent hints already cover safety, so the added detail is valuable without being excessive.
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 with no wasted words. Every phrase contributes: 'recent', 'seed-list', 'for the org', 'most recent first', and the specific score fields. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 parameterless, read-only list operation, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and expected output. The annotations provide safety semantics, and the description supplies ordering and return fields, so no output schema is necessary. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter explanations are needed. The description enriches understanding by clarifying what the returned list contains, matching the baseline for 0-parameter 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 clearly identifies the action ('List'), the resource ('seed-list inbox-placement tests'), and the scope ('for the org'). It also states the ordering and output fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_inbox_placement_test and start_inbox_placement_test.
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 implies this is for browsing the org's test history by specifying 'most recent first' and 'for the org'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_inbox_placement_test for a single test'), though sibling names make the intent reasonably clear.
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.