add_suppressionManually add an address to your suppression list so future sends skip it. Hard bounces and complaints are added automatically - use this for addresses you want to stop emailing. API: POST /api/suppressions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Reason (default: manual) | |
| address | Yes | Email address to suppress |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core effect (future sends skip the address) and contrasts with automatic additions, but it does not mention idempotency, behavior when the address already exists, or required permissions. These gaps are noteworthy given the absence of 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and API endpoint. There is no wasted wording.
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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the automatic-vs-manual distinction, and the HTTP method. It falls short only in not addressing potential edge cases like handling of duplicate suppressions, but this is minor for such a simple 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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('address' and 'reason' with enum and default). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—schema does the heavy lifting.
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's function: 'Manually add an address to your suppression list so future sends skip it.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this from the existing sibling tools like remove_suppression and list_suppressions by focusing on manual addition.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('use this for addresses you want to stop emailing') and notes that hard bounces and complaints are handled automatically, implying the tool is for manual cases. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple add operation.
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.
While most tools have distinct purposes, several clusters overlap significantly (e.g., check_email, check_email_deliverability, get_email_deliverability, get_domain_email_status; buy_domain, buy_aftermarket, acquire_domain). The descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_mailbox, list_domains), but there are notable inconsistencies: destructive actions mix delete/remove/cancel/revoke/unsell, and a few names deviate entirely (search, dns_check, domain_status). The pattern is recognizable but not uniformly applied.
With 122 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a comprehensive domain and email platform, the tool count is overwhelming and will likely hinder agent performance through excessive choice and context bloat.
The server covers a wide range of domains, DNS, email, marketplace, negotiations, transfers, webhooks, tokens, and billing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for mail rules, no direct domain deletion, and limited mailbox configuration beyond forwarding and credentials, but most lifecycle workflows are supported.