monapay_list_email_suppressionsList suppressed recipient email addresses from bounces, complaints, or manual opt-outs to audit deliverability and maintain sending compliance.
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.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by defining what suppression means (bounce, complaint, manual), which goes beyond the bare tool name. However, it does not disclose the output shape, whether reasons are returned per address, pagination behavior, or that this is a non-destructive read — though the verb 'list' weakly implies it.
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 parallel clauses — Vietnamese and English — with the verb front-loaded and the suppression-cause taxonomy adding genuine value. The bilingual duplication is mild redundancy but serves a dual-language user base; nothing extraneous is present.
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?
Adequate for a simple zero-parameter list tool, but the crowded sibling set makes the missing differentiation material. The description does not clarify the scope boundary versus `mail_suppressions_list`, nor hint that results can be cleaned up via `monapay_remove_email_suppression`. For such a small tool, the core meaning is covered but the surrounding workflow context is not.
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 has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description correctly implies a parameterless list operation.
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 states a clear verb ('Liệt kê' / 'List') and resource (suppressed recipient addresses), and even adds the suppression causes: bounce, complaint, or manual. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling `mail_suppressions_list`, leaving ambiguity about which list tool applies in which context.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With `mail_suppressions_list` as a sibling and `monapay_remove_email_suppression` being the natural follow-up action, the description does not say when to choose this over `mail_suppressions_list` or when to pair it with the removal tool. Usage context is only implied by the monapay prefix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.