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.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by disclosing the response envelope ({data, paging}) and each record's fields (id, name, contact counts by status, created_at). It does not discuss rate limits or empty-account behavior, but for a read-only endpoint this is solid added context.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then pagination mechanics. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by sketching the return envelope and record fields. Combined with full parameter documentation and clear pagination instructions, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.
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 both `limit` (1..100) and `starting_after` are already fully documented in the schema. The description mostly restates the max of 100 and that the cursor comes from the previous page's paging block, adding little 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List all lists in the account') and disambiguates from `emailoctopus_get_list` by making clear this enumerates every list rather than one. The added note 'EmailOctopus: GET /lists' pins the exact upstream operation.
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?
Provides clear context for when this tool applies (full account enumeration) and explains the pagination path via `limit`/`starting_after`. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as `get_list` for a single list or `create_list`, so it stops short of the when/when-not standard.
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.