Skip to main content
Glama

Remove suppression

removeSuppression
Destructive

Take an address off the suppression list, so mail may go to it again. Only a complaint or a manual entry can be removed; a hard bounce stays, because the address could not take mail. Subscribers of suppression.removed hear about it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "removeSuppression"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description adds real context: a category-level failure mode (hard bounces are rejected) and a side effect (a suppression.removed event is emitted to subscribers). It omits permission requirements and what happens on a no-op removal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the eligibility constraint, then the event side effect. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, eligibility, and observable side effect. Missing only edge-case behavior (address not on the list) and any auth/permission note.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single email parameter, so the description must compensate; 'an address' hints at the email field but adds no exact-match, normalization, or format guidance. Adequate but leaves the only parameter under-specified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Take an address off the suppression list') plus the outcome ('so mail may go to it again'), which no sibling name conveys on its own. The eligibility sentence distinguishes this from addSuppression and from block/unblock tools by saying only complaint or manual entries qualify.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly bounds when the tool applies: complaint and manual entries can be removed, hard bounces cannot, with the reason given. It does not name an alternative tool for the hard-bounce case, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.