mail_listAutorepliesV1List autoreplies from all mailboxes in a mail order with pagination support. Use page and per_page parameters to control results.
Retrieve a paginated list of autoreplies across all mailboxes of a mail order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| orderId | Yes | Order resource ID | |
| per_page | No | Number of items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.23.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the list is paginated and spans all mailboxes, which clarifies the scope of the operation.
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, front-loaded sentence conveys the verb, resource, pagination behavior, and scope with no wasted words. Every element 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 read-only list operation with fully covered parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could additionally mention default pagination behavior or available return fields, but those are not essential given the low complexity and annotation coverage.
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 100%, so the schema already documents page, orderId, and per_page clearly. The description adds only the contextual note that results span all mailboxes, which modestly reinforces the meaning of orderId but does not add parameter-level detail.
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 a specific action ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('autoreplies'), and a clear scope ('across all mailboxes of a mail order'). This clearly separates it from create/update/delete autoreply operations and from other mail list operations.
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: use this when you need a paginated list of autoreplies for a mail order. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention any exclusions, such as per-mailbox alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.