addy-mcp

list_blocklist

Read-only

Retrieve blocked email senders and domains, including the number of emails each has blocked, to audit or manage your addy.io blocklist.

Instructions

List blocked senders/domains, with how many emails each has blocked.

Tool call template

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_blocklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (1-based)
`sort`	No
`type`	No
`search`	No	Search by email or domain
`page_size`	No	Results per page (1-100)
`descending`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return context (aggregated blocked-email counts per entry) but says nothing about pagination limits, default page size, ordering, or empty-result behavior for a tool with six optional parameters.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (entries, count per entry) carries information the agent needs.

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 six-parameter list tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description is thin: it does not explain how filtering, sorting, or paging interact, nor what a page of results looks like. The core purpose is clear, but an agent must open the schema to learn the operational surface.

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 only 50%: page, page_size, and search are documented in the schema, while sort, type, and descending have no descriptions anywhere. The phrase 'senders/domains' implicitly signals the type filter's two categories and the counted field maps loosely to the 'blocked' sort key, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List blocked senders/domains') and adds what each row reports ('how many emails each has blocked'). That is enough to distinguish it from the write-oriented siblings like add_to_blocklist and remove_from_blocklist, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives for managing the blocklist. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' contrasted with the sibling names add/remove_from_blocklist.

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

Deploy Server