remove_suppressionRemove an address from your suppression list so you can email it again (e.g. after the recipient fixed their mailbox). API: DELETE /api/suppressions/{address}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Email address to remove from the suppression list |
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, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action (removing from suppression list) and that it enables future emailing, and it includes the HTTP DELETE method, implying destructive intent. However, it does not explicitly state whether the removal is permanent, what happens if the address is not on the list, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich behavioral 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?
The description is two sentences, both highly informative. The first sentence states the purpose and action, and the second provides the exact API endpoint. No wasted words; it is front-loaded with the essential information.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, why, and provides the API mapping. It lacks explicit error-handling or idempotency details, but such information is not critical for this simple delete operation. Slight gap is not mentioning that the address must already be on the suppression list, but this is inferable from context.
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 of the single parameter 'address' with a clear description. The tool description adds contextual meaning ('so you can email it again') but does not add new details about the parameter beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 explicitly states the action ('Remove an address'), the resource ('your suppression list'), and the purpose ('so you can email it again'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_suppression and list_suppressions by focusing on removal with a concrete use case.
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 a clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to re-enable emailing an address that previously bounced (e.g., after the recipient fixed their mailbox). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with add_suppression, but the example implies the appropriate scenario.
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.