list_aliasesRetrieve your email aliases newest first, including notes, enabled status and forwarded/blocked counts; filter results by address or note substring.
List the user's aliases, newest first, with note, enabled state and forwarded/blocked counts. Optional query filters by address or note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Substring of the address or note. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: the result ordering (newest first) and the exact fields each record carries, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what happens at the 200-item cap.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the core listing behavior and ordering front-loaded before the optional filter. Every clause carries information.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields and their order is exactly the missing piece, so the description is largely complete. The one gap is pagination/truncation semantics tied to `limit`, which an agent would need to page 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 coverage is 50%: `query` is already documented in the schema and the description only restates it ('filters by address or note'). The more important `limit` parameter (default 50, max 200) gets no mention at all, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (list) and resource (the user's aliases) plus ordering (newest first) and the fields returned (note, enabled state, forwarded/blocked counts). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_alias or set_alias_enabled by the verb alone, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 description: this is the read/enumerate path for aliases, and `query` is optional. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling get_latest_code/recent_messages alternatives, and no statement about what to do when the result set is truncated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.