Add a recipient to the allowlist and send a consent invitation when required, enabling compliant email delivery.
Adds a recipient and sends a consent invitation when required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| apiKey | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Input schema / properties / apiKey / formatAdded value: +"starts_with"Input schema / properties / email / patternPrevious value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the conditional sending of a consent invitation, but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, error scenarios, or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the main action efficiently. It avoids unnecessary words, but its brevity sacrifices crucial details, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It omits critical context such as how the consent invitation is triggered, what happens if the recipient already exists, any prerequisites like authentication, and the expected outcome. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely on the description.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The schema itself provides formats and patterns for email and apiKey, but the description adds no meaning about their usage or purpose, making it unhelpful for an agent that needs to know what values to provide.
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 that the tool adds a recipient and optionally sends a consent invitation. It identifies the primary action and target resource, distinguishing it from list/remove operations by implication, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_recipients or remove_recipient. The phrase 'when required' is vague and does not specify conditions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when the consent invitation is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.