monapay_list_email_suppressionsList email addresses suppressed by MONA Pay due to bounces, complaints, or manual blocks. Check which recipients are excluded before sending to avoid failed or flagged transactional emails.
Liệt kê địa chỉ bị suppression do bounce, khiếu nại hoặc tắt tay. / List suppressed recipient addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail that entries stem from bounce, complaint, or manual suppression, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume of results.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with the bilingual duplication being a deliberate pattern rather than padding. No wasted clauses.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool the description covers the essentials, but with no output schema and no mention of pagination or result size, an agent cannot anticipate the shape or volume of the response.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, though it also does not note whether the full list is always returned unpaged.
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?
Specific verb + resource ('Liệt kê / List suppressed recipient addresses') and it enumerates the suppression causes (bounce, complaint, manual opt-out), so the agent knows exactly what data is returned. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling monapay_remove_email_suppression, so it falls short of 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 implied by the read-only listing nature, but there is no statement of when to call this versus monapay_remove_email_suppression or the email-config/stats siblings, and no prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.