list-domainsRetrieve all configured domains from the Inbound Email API to manage email communications, webhooks, and endpoints.
No description provided
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list-domains"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is missing, so it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations only include a title with no hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), leaving the agent with no information about safety, permissions, or operational traits.
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 under-specified ('No description provided'), which is not conciseness but a failure to provide any content. It lacks structure and does not front-load key information, making it ineffective for tool selection.
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?
Given the complexity (a list operation with sibling tools) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information on what 'domains' are, the return format, or how it fits into the context of email/mailbox-related tools.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description adds nothing, but this is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
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 is 'No description provided', which is missing entirely. It fails to state what the tool does, making it impossible to understand its purpose or distinguish it from sibling tools like list_emails or list_endpoints.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is absent, so there is no mention of context, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools such as check_mailbox or list_threads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.