Retrieve email addresses that opted out within a date range so you can avoid re-adding them to campaigns. Read-only and useful for cleaning contact lists.
Addresses that asked to be removed. Never re-add these. Read-only. SOAP operation: GetRemovedEMailAddresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dToDateAndTime | Yes | ||
| dFromDateAndTime | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does declare 'Read-only' plus the critical behavioral warning not to re-add these addresses. However, it says nothing about the required date-range scoping, result volume, or ordering, leaving the operational profile only half-described.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the critical warning. The trailing 'SOAP operation: GetRemovedEMailAddresses' is traceability metadata rather than agent-facing value, but it costs little.
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 tool with two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description omits the required date window entirely. It covers the safety profile and the do-not-re-add rule, but an agent could not invoke it correctly on this text alone.
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 0% and the description says nothing about the two required date parameters or their expected format. The parameter names/titles ('From Date And Time', 'To Date And Time') are self-evident, which prevents a 1, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 resource and its meaning: addresses that opted out of email, with the verb implied by the list_ prefix. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_bounced_addresses, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but 'Never re-add these' gives a concrete downstream directive that shapes how the agent should treat results. That is actionable guidance without being full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.