list-audiencesRetrieve all audiences in your Emailit account with pagination controls for page number and results per page, supporting audience management and selection.
List all audiences in your Emailit account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1). | |
| limit | No | Results per page (max: 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It omits that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, whether auth/account scope is implied, and — most importantly — that results are paged, which mildly contradicts the phrase 'List all audiences'.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. There is no wasted language, though the terseness is close to under-specification given the tool takes pagination parameters.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call it. It still leaves pagination behavior and result shape unaddressed, which matters when the description claims to return 'all' audiences.
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%, with page and limit fully documented (defaults, min/max) in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; the 'all' wording arguably undercuts the pagination semantics rather than supporting them.
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 (audiences) scoped to the Emailit account, so an agent can distinguish it from list-contacts, list-domains, or list-templates by resource. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation or scope qualifiers (e.g., filtering), but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The agent must infer that list-audiences is the bulk-retrieval counterpart to get-audience and that pagination params exist for large accounts; nothing in the text says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.