list_forwardersRetrieve all email forwarders for a specified domain and see where each address routes. Use it to audit forwarding rules and verify destination addresses.
Lists the email forwarders on a domain and the destinations each one forwards to.
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that destinations are returned alongside each forwarder, which is useful output context but not a deep behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource and then adds the return value. No wasted words.
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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It even mentions the return shape (forwarders plus destinations) despite no output schema. Minor gap: no pagination or result-size context.
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 the single 'domain' parameter is fully documented in the schema with a pattern and example. The description only reiterates that the list is scoped to a domain, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('email forwarders on a domain'), and it clarifies the return content ('the destinations each one forwards to'). It distinguishes itself from create_forwarder and delete_forwarder by implication, but never explicitly names alternatives, so it falls 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?
Usage is implied by the listing purpose—an agent can infer this is for inspecting existing forwarders—but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention of sibling tools like create_forwarder or delete_forwarder. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.