addy-mcp

bulk_set_alias_labels

Idempotent

Replace labels on up to 25 email aliases in one call, letting you retag many addy.io aliases at once instead of editing each one separately.

Instructions

Replace the labels of up to 25 aliases at once.

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": {
      "alias_ids": "<alias_ids>",
      "label_ids": "<label_ids>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_set_alias_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alias_ids`	Yes	Alias ids (max 25)
`label_ids`	Yes	Labels every alias should have

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the burden is lower. The description's one added value is the word 'Replace', implying existing label assignments are overwritten rather than appended, which is meaningful context the annotations do not convey. It says nothing about partial failure behavior or whether the operation is atomic across the 25 aliases.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key scope limit is stated up front. It slightly duplicates the schema's maxItems: 25 constraint rather than spending the words on something not already structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter bulk mutation with full schema coverage and four annotations, the description covers the essentials. Gaps remain on overwrite semantics when label_ids is empty and on behavior for mixed valid/invalid alias ids, which matter for a bulk write.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the max-25 constraint and that label_ids is the full target set. The description repeats the 25 limit but adds no new meaning about alias_ids or label_ids semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Replace'), resource ('labels of aliases') and bulk scope ('up to 25 ... at once'), which clearly separates it from the single-item set_alias_labels. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the bulk counterpart of set_alias_labels and not related to bulk_set_alias_recipients, which sets a different property on the same objects.

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

Deploy Server