mail_listForwardersV1Retrieve a paginated list of email forwarders across all mailboxes for a mail order. Provide the order resource ID, with optional page and per_page parameters to control the results.
Retrieve a paginated list of forwarders 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 signal a safe read-only operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are paginated and cover all mailboxes within a mail order. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it stops short of describing response structure or default pagination behavior.
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 that conveys the action, resource, scope, and pagination without wasted words. It is appropriately concise and structured for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool with one required parameter and a fully documented schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly. It could optionally mention that the orderId comes from a mail order resource and describe the output shape, but these are not critical gaps.
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%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds the 'mail order' context and the pagination behavior, but does not provide additional detail beyond what the schema and description together already convey.
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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('forwarders'), and the scope ('across all mailboxes of a mail order'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_listAliasesV1 or mail_listMailboxesV1. The pagination aspect is also named, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 gives clear context: use it to get a paginated list of forwarders for a mail order. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the many mail-related list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.