Retrieve paginated verification history for your BillionVerify account to review past email verification results and track activity.
List verification history for your BillionVerify account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | The page number to retrieve | |
| limit | No | The number of history records to return per page | |
| api_key | No | BillionVerify API key (optional if BILLIONVERIFY_API_KEY env is set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' does imply a read-only operation, but the description discloses nothing else — no mention of authentication expectations, pagination/ordering behavior, result limits, or what the returned records contain. The bare verb is the minimum possible disclosure.
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?
A single seven-word sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place and the purpose is immediately parseable.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description says nothing about the response shape, ordering, or how far back history extends. Against a field of 10 siblings, it also fails to disambiguate from get_verification_stats. For a simple list tool the gap is moderate, but the description is thinner than it should be given the missing structured 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents page, limit, and api_key. The description adds only marginal context ('your account' loosely ties to api_key) but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (verification history) with a clear account scope. The purpose is unambiguous and readable at a glance, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling get_verification_stats — the distinction between 'history' and 'stats' is left to inference.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_verification_stats and verify_single_email, the agent gets no help choosing between a chronological history list and aggregated statistics, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.