Retrieve your team's sending domains and their verification status to check which domains are ready for transactional email.
List the team's sending domains with their verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Cursor: id of the last item of the previous page (forward paging) | |
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 (default 20) | |
| before | No | Cursor: id of the first item of the previous page (backward paging; not with after) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's main added value is disclosing that each domain carries a verification status. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, which the schema partially covers via cursors.
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 no filler; the resource and the returned attribute are stated immediately.
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 read-only enumeration tool with a fully documented schema and readOnlyHint annotation, this is nearly complete. The only shortfall is the absence of any tie-breaker against get_domain or note on paging/volume.
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%, and all three parameters (after, limit, before) are fully documented in the schema including mutual exclusivity of before/after. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?
Clear specific verb+resource: "List the team's sending domains" with the added scope of verification status. It is distinguishable from the singular sibling get_domain by the list framing, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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 sibling get_domain for fetching a single domain's details. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-enumeration counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.