Remove an email address from the recipient allowlist to prevent future emails from being sent to that contact.
Removes a recipient from the allowed recipient list.
| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic mutation. It does not mention whether removal is idempotent, irreversible, fails for unknown recipients, or requires authentication via apiKey.
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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action, though its brevity comes at the cost of useful behavioral and parameter context.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, and any relationship to sibling tools like add_recipient or list_recipients.
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 adds no parameter-level meaning. It never explains that the email parameter identifies which recipient to remove or what apiKey is used for, so the description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.
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 action (removes) and the resource (a recipient from the allowed recipient list). It is distinguishable from the sibling add_recipient, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by name or compare with list_recipients.
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 given about when to use this tool vs alternatives. It never mentions that add_recipient would be the inverse operation or that list_recipients should be used to inspect the current list before removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.