Retrieve all email autoresponders from your cPanel account, enabling you to review and manage automated email replies.
List all email autoresponders
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_autoresponders"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or output structure. This adds no value beyond the tool's name.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 no-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete: it clearly states what is listed. However, since there is no output schema, a brief mention of return format or scope limitations (e.g., per-domain) would improve completeness. Still, for this complexity level, it is nearly sufficient.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description's mention of 'all' reinforces that no filtering is available, which is sufficient. No parameter-specific semantics are needed.
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 'List all email autoresponders' uses a specific verb (List), identifies the exact resource (email autoresponders), and explicitly includes scope ('all'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_autoresponder/delete_autoresponder and other 'list_' tools.
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 usage through the verb 'List' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or related tools. The context is sufficient for a simple list operation but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.