Skip to main content
Glama

Mailrith Email Marketing

List email templates

email_templates_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns reusable email templates linked to the authenticated workspace. Permission: email_templates:read. Pagination: use bounded pages and returned cursors. API reference: https://mailrith.com/developers/api-reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of items to return.
searchNoFilter email templates by name.
starting_afterNoOpaque cursor returned by the previous page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
responseNo
request_idYesThe stable correlation ID for this MCP tool invocation.
operation_idYesThe stable Mailrith public API operation ID.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior. The description adds permission scope and pagination details, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences covering purpose, permissions, and pagination. No redundant information; each sentence earns its place.

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?

With output schema present, the description sufficiently covers purpose, permissions, and pagination. Lacks a brief note on response structure but is adequate.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions; description does not add new parameter meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns email templates for the authenticated workspace. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and specifies the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'email_templates_get'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides pagination guidance and permission requirement, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get a single template).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool is prefixed by its resource and targets a unique action, so there is no real overlap between tools. Even similar operations like preflight, preview_journey, and send_test are clearly separated by resource and described with distinct effects.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `resource_action` snake_case pattern, e.g., broadcasts_create, subscribers_upsert, sequences_update_status. Custom verbs like cancel, unschedule, and preview_journey still fit the same predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

55 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently discover and choose among the surface. While each tool appears justified, the size suggests the API should be split into focused servers by resource domain.

Completeness3/5

The broadcast, automation, sequence, and subscriber workflows are well covered with lifecycle operations. However, custom fields and segments only have read/list/preview operations with no create, update, or delete, and several resources lack delete endpoints, leaving notable gaps for full lifecycle management.