create_email_listCreate a new email list to organize contacts and run targeted email marketing campaigns in SendGrid.
Create a new email list in your SendGrid account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the email list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations and the action word 'Create' already convey, such as return values, uniqueness behavior, or side effects.
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?
The description is one concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and is appropriately sized for a single-parameter creation tool.
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 simple create operation with one required parameter and annotations covering the fundamental behavioral hints, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention what the operation returns, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this a minor gap.
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 100%, and the schema already documents the 'name' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new email list', scoped to the SendGrid account. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_email_list, delete_email_list, and list_email_lists by naming the create action and the exact resource.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. It only restates the core action without explaining how it relates to sibling tools such as create_contact_with_lists or list_email_lists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.