domain_healthRetrieve warm-up status, remaining capacity, 7-day bounce and complaint rates, and pause reason for a sending domain to monitor email deliverability health.
Warm-up step, today's remaining capacity, 7-day bounce and complaint rates, and pause reason for one sending domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Domain id from list_domains |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the returned signals (warm-up step, capacity, bounce/complaint rates, pause reason), which implies a read-only diagnostic, but it never states that this is non-mutating, nor mentions auth scope, freshness/lag of the 7-day window, or rate limits.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then lists the payload. No filler, no restatement of the title or name, and every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey what comes back — and it does, naming all four metric groups. It is therefore sufficient for an agent to decide and call. It would be a 5 with a brief note on read-only behavior or when to reach for it over list_domains.
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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Domain id from list_domains', so the schema already handles semantics. The description adds nothing about the id format or where to obtain it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific resource (one sending domain) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: warm-up step, remaining capacity, 7-day bounce/complaint rates, and pause reason. That is enough to distinguish it from list_domains (which enumerates domains) and email_status. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it falls just below a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'for one sending domain' signals single-domain scope, and the 'from list_domains' note in the schema hints at a prerequisite lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no stated alternative when the agent needs health across many domains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.