emailoctopus_list_listsList all lists in the account. Returns {data:[...],paging:{...}} — each list's id, name, contact counts by status, and created_at. Paginate with limit (max 100) and starting_after (cursor from the previous page). EmailOctopus: GET /lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max lists to return (1..100). | |
| starting_after | No | Pagination cursor — the id to start after (from the previous page's paging). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds valuable behavioral details like return format ({data, paging}) and pagination mechanics, which go beyond 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return structure. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation), the description fully covers purpose, return shape, and pagination. No output schema needed as description specifies the response structure.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining pagination: 'Paginate with `limit` (max 100) and `starting_after` (cursor from the previous page)'. Schema coverage is 100%, but this contextual explanation enhances understanding.
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 'List all lists in the account' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like emailoctopus_get_list (single list) and emailoctopus_create_list (create).
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 usage for listing all lists but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like get_list for a single list. However, the context of listing all lists is 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.