Bouncify MCP by usefulapi

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding non-obvious operational context: it is a poll target and the API permits 120 requests per minute. It does not describe behavior on an unknown job_id or what terminal job states look like.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: positive scope first, exclusions second, polling guidance last. No filler and nothing buried.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the three fields of interest. Annotations cover the safety profile and the rate limit is disclosed. The only real gap is how to source job_id, which matters for a one-required-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and job_id has only a regex pattern, no prose. The description implies job_id selects 'one existing job' but never says where to obtain it (presumably bouncify_create_bulk_list) or what an invalid id does. Minimum-viable given a single well-named parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one existing job') and enumerates exactly what is returned: preparation state, verification progress, and aggregate result counts. The negative clauses ('does not start verification or download address-level results') draw a clear line between this and bouncify_start_bulk_verification.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use it (starting verification, fetching address-level results) and gives a polling cadence with a concrete limit of 120 requests per minute. It never names the sibling to use instead by name, but the negative framing makes the routing clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it creates stored vendor data, requires confirm:true, and sets auto_verify to false rather than starting verification. These details tell the agent about a persistent side effect and a required confirmation, which the annotations alone would not convey. It does not discuss return values or rate limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints, then the follow-on step. Every sentence carries useful information, though the 'auto_verify:false' phrasing is slightly awkward given it is not a schema parameter.

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?

Covers constraints, confirmation, side effects, and the next step for a two-parameter tool. However, with no output schema, the description never says what is returned (e.g., a list or job identifier) or how the agent knows the job is ready, leaving a meaningful gap before calling bouncify_start_bulk_verification.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for the key parameter by stating confirm:true is required. It also restates the 1–1,000 address range. It does not explain email format validation or duplicate handling, and mentioning 'auto_verify:false' as if it were an input could briefly confuse an agent since no such parameter exists.

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?

Names a specific action and resource: uploading 1–1,000 email addresses as a new list. It explicitly distinguishes this from verification by stating it does not start verification, and names the sibling that does. An agent can select this tool without inspecting the schema.

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?

Clearly states the follow-on action: use bouncify_start_bulk_verification after the job becomes ready. It also clarifies that this step does not start verification. It does not explicitly exclude single-email use or name bouncify_verify_email as the alternative, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that invoking it does not trigger verification or consume credits, but says nothing about the openWorldHint network call, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping clause ('without verifying any email') lands immediately after the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that, absent an output schema, it doesn't say what the credit balance response looks like, though this is a minor omission for such a simple call.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object is self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (Bouncify verification credits) and explicitly excludes the behavior of its siblings by noting it runs 'without verifying any email'. An agent can distinguish it from bouncify_verify_email and the bulk tools without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'without verifying any email' implies this is a pre-flight/account-check tool rather than an action tool, but it never says when to call it (e.g., before bouncify_start_bulk_verification) or names alternatives explicitly. Usage is inferable but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses credit consumption per address, that the job is irreversible (no pause or cancel), and that confirm:true is mandatory. These are exactly the traits the annotations understate, since destructiveHint=false does not convey credit spend or one-way execution; what's missing is failure/partial-completion behavior.

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?

Three tight clauses with the action first, then cost/irreversibility, then the resubmission guardrail — nothing wasted. The leading sentence is a fragment ('Start a ready uploaded list') that is slightly clipped for an agent unfamiliar with the workflow.

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 two-param irreversible mutation with no output schema and no annotations covering cost, this covers the decisive facts: prerequisite state, credit spend, irreversibility, and the confirm gate. Only the missing link to bouncify_create_bulk_list and the result of a successful start keep it from being complete.

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 0% schema description coverage the description must carry both params, and it does: job_id is characterized as a previously uploaded list that must be 'ready', and confirm is explicitly declared to require true even though the schema defaults it to false and does not mark it required. It does not explain where job_id originates.

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?

States a specific verb ('Start') applied to a prepared bulk verification list, which combined with the tool name makes the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling bouncify_create_bulk_list, which is the tool that would produce the 'ready uploaded list' referenced here.

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?

Gives a concrete pre-flight rule: check job status and the dashboard before resubmitting an uncertain request, which routes the agent toward bouncify_bulk_status. It stops short of naming that sibling or stating that a list must first be created via bouncify_create_bulk_list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a 30-second vendor timeout, credit consumption, the confirm gate, and the caveat that unknown/catch-all results do not guarantee delivery. These are exactly the cost, latency and result-trust facts an agent needs before calling a non-idempotent, credit-spending tool.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information (timeout, cost gate, result caveat, retry rule), with the core action front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic but no wasted text.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers cost, latency, prerequisites and result interpretation caveats. It does not say what the response contains (e.g. status values returned), which would help since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it explains the non-obvious 'confirm' flag, which the schema documents only as a boolean defaulting to false. It says nothing extra about the email parameter, but the schema's format/pattern/maxLength already constrain that fully.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verify one address') and the 'one' explicitly scopes it against the bulk siblings. An agent can distinguish it from bouncify_start_bulk_verification or bouncify_create_bulk_list without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions ('requires confirm:true') and a prohibitive rule ('Never automatically retry an uncertain response'), which directly shapes invocation behavior. It implies but never names the bulk alternative as the multi-address path, so routing guidance is slightly incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.