get_spam_settingsRetrieve a domain's spam filter settings, including the high_score threshold used to auto-delete spam. Use it to inspect or verify spam handling for an MXroute domain.
Returns the spam filter settings for a domain. high_score (1-50) is the score threshold for auto-deletion of spam.
| 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 covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — the meaning and range of the high_score return field (1-50, auto-deletion threshold) — but says nothing about error behavior for unknown domains or about the remaining returned fields.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, and the second sentence delivers a concrete numeric constraint rather than filler. Nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, yet it documents only one field (high_score). It omits the other settings an agent would receive and any failure behavior, leaving the response shape largely unknown.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (including pattern and an example), the schema already carries the parameter semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description's high_score note concerns a return value, not the domain parameter, so it adds no parameter-level meaning.
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 and resource ('Returns the spam filter settings') with scope ('for a domain'), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not differentiate from the close sibling update_spam_settings or from the whitelist/blacklist listing tools, 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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the read/write relationship with update_spam_settings, and no prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist on the account). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.