Fetch paginated results for a bulk email verification batch using its batch ID. Use page and pageSize to review large batches without loading all rows at once.
Fetch a page of results for a bulk verification batch. Paginated — use page and pageSize for large batches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number. Default 1. | |
| batchId | Yes | The batchId returned by verify_batch. | |
| pageSize | No | Rows per page (1–1000). Default 100. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful pagination trait, but omits behaviorally relevant facts such as whether a still-processing batch yields partial/empty results or errors, and there is no mention of ordering or result volume.
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 sentences: the core action first, then the pagination qualifier. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return shape but only says 'a page of results' — it doesn't indicate what a result row contains or how to detect the end of pagination. Annotations and full schema coverage keep it viable, but the polling/results-availability question an agent will actually face is unanswered.
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% — page (1-based, default 1), pageSize (1–1000, default 100), and batchId are all documented in the schema. The description only restates that page/pageSize exist, adding no new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a page of results for a bulk verification batch'), which clearly separates it from the verify/check siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, get_batch_status, so the agent must infer the results-vs-status split.
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 pagination note tells the agent to use page/pageSize for large batches, and the schema ties batchId to verify_batch. However, there is no guidance on when results are actually available (i.e., whether get_batch_status should be polled first) and no explicit exclusion of the status sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.