Retrieve suppressed recipient addresses to prevent sending emails to blocked or unsubscribed contacts. Filter by email and paginate using limit and cursor.
List suppressed recipient addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Optional filter by email | ||
| 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, and it does almost nothing: 'List' implies a safe read, but pagination behavior, result ordering, whether it includes recently removed addresses, and any auth requirements are all unstated.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 paged list tool the schema already covers all three optional parameters and no output schema exists, so little is strictly missing. Still, nothing explains that this returns a paginated collection or how cursor/limit interact, leaving a small gap an agent would appreciate.
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% – email filter, limit (1-100), and cursor are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level, yielding the baseline 3.
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 suppressed recipient addresses.' An agent can tell it lists suppressions, but the description never differentiates it from siblings like add_suppression, remove_suppression, or list_emails, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (add_suppression/remove_suppression) that share the suppression resource. The agent gets a purpose but no routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.