monapay_email_statsRetrieve email delivery totals, success rate, P95 latency, and error groups for a date range to monitor sending performance and diagnose issues.
Lấy tổng số gửi, tỷ lệ thành công, P95 và nhóm lỗi trong khoảng ngày. / Get email delivery totals, success rate, P95 latency and error groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the metric payload, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about date-range defaults, timezone, or what happens when the range is omitted even though both params are optional.
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 leads with the verb and metric list. The bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length, but that appears to be a deliberate convention for this server rather than padding.
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?
Listing returned metrics partially compensates for the absent output schema, but with zero parameter documentation, optional-but-unexplained date bounds, and no sibling routing guidance, an agent still lacks what it needs to call this confidently versus the log-level 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the two date parameters have no descriptions, only regex patterns. The description mentions 'a date range' but does not name from_date/to_date, give the YYYY-MM-DD format, or note that both are optional — so it does not 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?
The description gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource (email delivery stats) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: totals, success rate, P95 latency, error groups. It is clearly distinguishable from monapay_email_logs (raw logs) though it never names that sibling.
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?
It states a scope ('within a date range') but offers no when-to-use guidance, no distinction from monapay_email_logs or mail_stats, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the aggregate view rather than the per-event view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.