Ranla

Get deliverability

get_deliverability

Read-only

Fetch best-effort deliverability metrics for recent sends (7d or 30d window).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window`	No	Look-back window. Default 30d

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	How to read the numbers
`window`	Yes	7d or 30d
`summary`	Yes	Counts and rates across all sends in the window
`by_domain`	No	The same, per sending domain
`generated_at`	No	ISO 8601
`window_start`	No	ISO 8601
`top_bounce_reasons`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / window / description
```
Added value: +"Look-back window. Default 30d"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "by_domain": {
+      "description": "The same, per sending domain",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "attempted": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "bounce_rate": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "bounced": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "click_rate": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "clicked": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "complained": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "complaint_rate": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "delivered": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "delivery_rate": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "domain": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "failed": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "mail_server_relay": {
+            "description": "Relay counts from the mail server, for the busiest domains",
+            "properties": {
+              "bounced": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "delayed": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "failed": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "sent": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "total_messages": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "window_days": {
+                "type": "number"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "open_rate": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "opened": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "scheduled": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "sent": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "suppressed": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "total_emails": {
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "domain"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "generated_at": {
+      "description": "ISO 8601",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "notes": {
+      "description": "How to read the numbers",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "Counts and rates across all sends in the window",
+      "properties": {
+        "attempted": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "bounce_rate": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "bounced": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "click_rate": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "clicked": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "complained": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "complaint_rate": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "delivered": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "delivery_rate": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "failed": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "open_rate": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "opened": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "scheduled": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "sent": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "suppressed": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "total_emails": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "top_bounce_reasons": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "count": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "window": {
+      "description": "7d or 30d",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "window_start": {
+      "description": "ISO 8601",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "window",
+    "summary"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat with 'best-effort', signaling the metrics may be approximate or incomplete, but says nothing about aggregation scope, latency, or account-level vs domain-level resolution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the caveat ('best-effort') and the scope ('recent sends', window size) front-loaded. There is no filler and nothing redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the two things the structured fields cannot: the accuracy caveat and the fact that results cover 'recent sends'. The missing usage guidance is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum values and default (30d) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates '7d or 30d window' without adding meaning such as what a 30d look-back actually aggregates, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch deliverability metrics for recent sends', with the scope narrowed to a 7d/30d window. No sibling tool overlaps with deliverability reporting, so the purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighbors like get_domain or list_emails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 prerequisites, and no alternatives. It mentions the two windows but does not say which to pick or when this tool is the right call versus inspecting a specific domain or email.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Ranla tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?