emailoctopus_create_listCREATES a new list — this MODIFIES live data. Provide a name. EmailOctopus: POST /lists. Returns the created list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-readable name for the new list. |
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 flag destructiveHint=true; description adds that it modifies live data and returns the created list, but no extra detail on auth or 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?
Two concise sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with key warning and action.
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 1-param tool with annotations, the description covers creation, return value, and live data warning. Could mention error scenarios, but not essential.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description; the description merely repeats 'Provide a `name`' without adding meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'CREATES a new list' with verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_list or update_list.
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?
Implies use case (creating a list) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (list, contact, campaign) and action (create, get, update, delete, list, reports), with no overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the emailoctopus_{verb}_{resource} pattern consistently, using clear verbs and correct singular/plural forms.
13 tools cover the key operations for an email marketing platform without being excessive or sparse, well-scoped to the domain.
List and contact operations are complete (CRUD), but campaign management is read-only—missing create, update, send, and delete campaigns, which is a notable gap.