sendgrid_list_marketing_listsList your Marketing Campaigns contact lists, each with its id, name, and contact_count. Returns { result: [...], _metadata }. SendGrid: GET /v3/marketing/lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | Number of lists per page (1–1000, default 100). | |
| page_token | No | Pagination token from a previous response's _metadata. |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape ({ result, _metadata }) and the underlying SendGrid endpoint, which helps agents understand pagination and API context beyond the 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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, includes meaningful output details, and ends with the API endpoint. Every word earns its place; there is no 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?
For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format, pagination via _metadata, and the API endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with annotations already conveying safety.
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 parameters (page_size and page_token) already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond mentioning _metadata in the return, which relates to pagination but does not deepen parameter understanding 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists Marketing Campaigns contact lists and specifies the returned fields (id, name, contact_count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sendgrid_list_templates or sendgrid_list_bounces by explicitly targeting contact lists.
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 the tool is for retrieving marketing contact lists and provides context through the output shape and endpoint. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or compare to alternatives, but the resource type ('contact lists') makes the use case 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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: send mail, manage contacts (upsert/count/search), templates (get/list), suppression lists (bounces/unsubscribes), marketing lists, stats, and health check. No overlaps or ambiguous boundaries.
All tools follow a consistent 'sendgrid_' prefix with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_template, list_bounces, send_mail). The only minor deviation is 'ping' for health check, but it's a conventional verb-only name and doesn't break the overall consistency.
11 tools is well-scoped for a SendGrid server, covering sending, contacts, templates, suppression, stats, and health. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
Core email sending, contact management, and read operations for templates/suppression are covered. However, there are no write operations for templates (create/update/delete) or suppression list management (remove), which are minor gaps that agents can work around by using the existing tools.