list_opt_outsList phone numbers that opted out via STOP keyword or manual entry, including channel, reason, and source. Read-only, with pagination for auditing and compliance checks.
List numbers that opted out (by STOP keyword or added manually), with channel, reason and source. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 (default 20). | |
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that. It does add useful context about what the records represent (STOP keyword vs manual entry) and which fields accompany each entry, but says nothing about pagination behavior or ordering, which matters for a list tool.
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?
One tight front-loaded sentence with no padding. The trailing 'Read-only.' is slightly redundant given the annotation, but it costs almost nothing.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should carry the return-value burden; it partially does by naming the per-record fields (channel, reason, source). However it omits pagination/result-set behavior and any ordering, leaving meaningful gaps for a paged listing tool.
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 coverage is only 50%: limit is documented in-schema but offset is not, and the description adds nothing about pagination semantics (page size, max, offsets, default). With a documented-but-unexplained paging pair, the description leaves the agent to guess how to paginate.
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 (list) and resource (numbers that opted out), and further disambiguates with the origin detail '(by STOP keyword or added manually)' plus the fields returned (channel, reason, source). This clearly separates it from check_opt_out, add_opt_out and remove_opt_out among the siblings.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative check_opt_out (single-number lookup) vs this bulk listing, and no prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.