sparkpost-mcp

create_recipient_list

Create a recipient list with required email addresses to organize contacts for email sending campaigns or transactional messages.

Instructions

Create a recipient list (recipients required; id/name auto-generated if omitted)

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": {
      "recipients": "<recipients>"
    },
    "name": "create_recipient_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`recipients`	Yes
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions auto-generation of id/name if omitted, but does not discuss side effects (e.g., whether duplicate ids cause errors), auth requirements, rate limits, or the fact that creation is a write operation.

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 sentence with a parenthetical note, front-loading the key action. Every word is functional with no redundancy, making it very concise.

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 absence of an output schema and the moderate complexity (4 parameters), the description should explain return values and behavior when id is provided (e.g., does it overwrite or error?). It also fails to clarify the recipients email format requirement, which is only in the schema pattern. Overall incomplete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It notes that recipients are required and id/name are auto-generated if omitted, adding meaning beyond schema structure. However, the description parameter is not mentioned, and no details about id/name formats or constraints are provided.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'recipient list', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_recipient_list and list_recipient_lists. However, it does not explain the purpose of a recipient list (e.g., for sending campaigns), which would add context.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for creating a new list and notes that recipients are required, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating an existing list, which has no dedicated tool). No when-not-to-use information is given.

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