list_spam_whitelistList account-wide spam whitelist sender entries that are never treated as spam; provide a domain you own to view them.
Lists the account-wide whitelist: sender entries that are never treated as spam. The domain argument must be one you own, but the lists themselves are account-wide.
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral point that the list is account-wide and the domain argument does not scope the results, which the agent cannot infer from the 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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and every clause carries information (the domain constraint and the account-wide caveat). No filler.
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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the action, the entry semantics, and the domain caveat. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by clarifying the semantic role of 'domain': it is an ownership/authorization anchor, not a result filter. That is added meaning the schema text alone does not convey.
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 ('Lists the account-wide whitelist') and immediately defines what an entry is ('sender entries that are never treated as spam'). This clearly separates it from the sibling list_spam_blacklist and from the add/remove whitelist-entry tools.
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?
It gives a real precondition ('the domain argument must be one you own'), which tells the agent when the call is valid, but it names no alternatives and offers no when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.