list_dm_logsRetrieve sent direct message logs with filters for automation, status, and search, and paginate results using a cursor.
List sent-DM logs (paginated). Filters: automationId, status (comma-separated: QUEUED,SENT,DELIVERED,OPENED,CLICKED,FAILED), q (search). Page with cursor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| automationId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds the pagination mechanism and the status vocabulary. It says nothing about default ordering, result volume, or how an exhausted cursor behaves, so the added behavioral context is modest.
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?
Three short segments, resource and pagination front-loaded, then filters. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.
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?
Covers filtering and pagination adequately for a five-param list tool with no output schema, but omits limit semantics, ordering, and any indication of what a log entry contains, which an agent may need to use results correctly.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely delivers: it explains q, automationId, cursor, and crucially supplies the comma-separated status enum values that the schema omits. It does not mention the limit parameter or its maximum of 200, leaving one of five params undocumented.
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 ('List sent-DM logs') and scopes it to sent DMs, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_conversations and list_broadcasts. It never names an alternative tool to route against, 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 filter list implies the intended retrieval contexts (by automation, by delivery status, by search term), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to a sibling for related data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.