list_suppressionsList addresses on your suppression list - hard bounces and complaints (added automatically) plus manual entries. Sends to these addresses are skipped. API: GET /api/suppressions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return (default 50, max 100) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response |
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 that hard bounces and complaints are added automatically and that sends to listed addresses are skipped, giving operational context. It also provides the API endpoint (GET /api/suppressions), implying a non-mutating read operation. The description does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a list operation, this is sufficient.
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 two sentences long and includes the API path. The first sentence states the main action, the second explains the behavior and context. No unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has no output schema, but the description adequately indicates that the response contains addresses. It explains the type of entries (hard bounces, complaints, manual) and the effect of being on the list, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of pagination details is mitigated by the schema's 'cursor' parameter.
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 input schema has 100% coverage of the two parameters: 'limit' and 'cursor', each with a description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: 'List addresses on your suppression list.' It specifies the resource (suppression list) and the verb (List), and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_suppression and remove_suppression by focusing solely on listing. It also explains what comprises the list, making the purpose unambiguous.
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: it lists addresses from the suppression list, including automatic and manual entries, and notes that sends are skipped. This implies the tool is used for viewing purposes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like add_suppression or remove_suppression. Context is solid, but explicit exclusions are missing.
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.