monapay_remove_email_suppressionRemove a suppressed email address after fixing its cause; the client accepts responsibility for future sends.
Gỡ suppression sau khi đã sửa nguyên nhân; client tự chịu trách nhiệm khi gửi lại. / Remove a suppression after fixing its cause; the client accepts responsibility for future sends.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — that the client assumes responsibility for future sends once the block is lifted — but says nothing about what exactly is destroyed, who may call it, or whether the removal is logged/reversible.
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?
Very short and front-loaded — the action and its precondition come first, the responsibility warning second. The bilingual duplication adds mild redundancy but no real bloat.
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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and no annotations covering permissions, the description covers the precondition and the risk warning but omits auth requirements, scope of effect, and what the caller gets back. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so the description carries the burden here and adds nothing about the single 'email' parameter. Mitigating factor: the parameter name plus format=email and the constrained pattern make its meaning self-evident, so the gap is minor rather than severe.
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 verb and resource ('Gỡ / Remove a suppression'), so an agent immediately knows this deletes an email suppression entry. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling mail_suppression_remove or from the list counterpart monapay_list_email_suppressions.
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?
The phrase 'after fixing its cause' gives an implied precondition for when removal is appropriate, which is real guidance. But there is no statement of when *not* to use it, no mention of the alternative removal tool, and no prerequisites such as required permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.