list_email_listsRetrieve all email lists from your SendGrid account, with an optional page size to control the number of results.
List all email lists
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_size | No | Number of results to return |
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope 'all' but does not disclose pagination behavior or the effect of page_size, which is relevant for a list tool.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter, safely annotated list tool, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke correctly. It is slightly incomplete because it does not reconcile 'all' with the page_size pagination parameter or clarify what fields the returned email lists contain.
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% for the only parameter 'page_size', which includes a default and a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states the exact verb and resource: 'List' + 'all email lists'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list segments, contacts, templates, senders, or automations, and from create/update/delete_email_list.
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 intended use is implied by the command itself: use it when you need to list email lists. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives like list_segments or list_contacts, so the agent receives no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.