sparkpost-mcp

add_suppression

Add or update a suppression entry for a specific email to control whether transactional or non-transactional emails are blocked.

Instructions

Add or update a suppression entry for one email

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "add_suppression"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`type`	No	non_transactional
`email`	Yes
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It hints at an upsert behavior ('Add or update') but does not explain key traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate emails, required authentication, or rate limits. The description is too sparse for safe agent invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource, earning its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, upsert behavior) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain parameter roles, return values, or side effects, leaving the agent without sufficient information for reliable use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter names, types, and enums are not explained in the description. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. Without guidance on what 'type' or 'description' mean, the agent cannot use the tool correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Add or update' and the resource 'suppression entry for one email'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like check_suppression (checking) and remove_suppression (removing), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not explain that this tool is for creating or updating suppressions, while check_suppression is for verification and remove_suppression for deletion. The description lacks context for appropriate tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.