Retrieve sending domains for your Groundmail account using pagination, so you can manage email sending identities and verify domain setup.
List sending domains for this account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (1–100) | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor for the next page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that results are paginated (only the schema hints at it), whether it requires authentication, whether it returns empty vs. error on no domains, or any rate limits. "List" weakly implies a safe read, but the disclosure is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of waste. It is efficient, though the size reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.
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 simple paginated list tool with 100% parameter coverage, the description is barely sufficient. There is no output schema, and while "sending domains" implies the return content, nothing is said about pagination flow, empty results, or authentication, which leaves gaps for an agent driving the cursor loop.
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% – both limit ("Page size (1–100)") and cursor ("Opaque cursor for the next page") are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ("List sending domains") and scopes it to "this account," which is enough to distinguish it from the mutation siblings create_domain, verify_domain, and apply_domain_dns. It does not explicitly name the alternative list tools or clarify how it differs from other list_* tools, so it stops short of the 5 calibration.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as a verified account or required permissions. The listing intent is only implied by the verb, which is weak routing help among so many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.