list_domainsLists the workspace's sending domains and their verification status, with pagination via limit and offset. Use it to check which domains are verified before sending email.
List the workspace's sending domains with their verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items per page (default 20, at most 1000). | |
| offset | No | Items to skip; the next page starts at offset + count. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping detail — workspace-scoped domains and verification status — but does not discuss pagination behavior or result completeness beyond what the schema provides.
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 states the resource and the additional returned attribute with no filler.
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 simple read-only list tool with complete schema documentation and safety annotations, the description supplies the essential purpose and scope. It could mention pagination defaults or return shape, but the schema already covers pagination parameters and no output schema is present.
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 100%, so limit and offset are fully documented by the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that baseline, which is appropriate but not enriching.
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 ("List") and resource ("the workspace's sending domains") and adds the verification-status detail. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_domain or verify_domain, but the plural/list framing is clear enough for an agent to differentiate it.
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 "List the workspace's sending domains," suggesting it is the bulk-retrieval tool for domains. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus get_domain for a single domain, nor any exclusion or prerequisite stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.