get_catch_allRetrieve the catch-all behavior for a domain, returning fail, blackhole, or address for mail sent to non-existent addresses.
Returns how mail to non-existent addresses on a domain is handled: fail, blackhole or address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name on the MXroute account, e.g. example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the return semantics (fail, blackhole, address), but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for unknown domains, or account scoping.
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 that states what is returned and the possible values, with zero redundant or filler text. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient, and the enumeration of return values effectively compensates for the absence of an output schema. Only edge behavior (invalid/unknown domain, account scoping) is unstated.
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%: the single domain parameter is documented in the schema with a pattern and example (example.com). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'on a domain', 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 (returns) and resource (catch-all handling for a domain), and enumerates the three possible dispositions (fail, blackhole, address), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly name its obvious mutation counterpart set_catch_all, so sibling differentiation is left to inference 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use statement, no mention of the set_catch_all sibling as the write alternative, and no stated preconditions beyond the required domain. The purpose is clear enough that usage can be guessed, but the description offers no guidance text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.