monapay_remove_email_suppressionRemove an email suppression after you have fixed its underlying cause, allowing future sends to that address. The client accepts responsibility for resending.
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.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the consequence of the action — re-enabling sends and shifting responsibility to the client — which is real behavioral context beyond the name, but it omits permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, behavior when the address is not suppressed, and the response shape.
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?
Both sentences are front-loaded and earn their place — the second carries the responsibility caveat. The bilingual duplication roughly doubles the text for the same content, which is the only structural inefficiency.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and consequence. It is still missing auth requirements, reversibility, and error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would want before calling it.
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 single parameter is undocumented in both schema (0% description coverage) and description, but the schema supplies a format constraint and a regex pattern that make 'email' self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so this sits at the minimum-viable baseline rather than compensating 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove a suppression') and names the object precisely, so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only sibling monapay_list_email_suppressions. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of the top score.
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 gives a clear precondition for use ('after fixing its cause'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate rather than merely what it does. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.