Volanea

volanea_check_delivery

Read-only

Inspect the send log to verify what actually happened. With emailId, returns that message's status, rendered HTML (truncated), engagement counters, and any error — the way to confirm a volanea_send_test_email rendered correctly. Without it, lists recent messages, optionally filtered by recipient, status, or source (transactional/campaign/workflow/inbound) — useful to confirm a workflow actually sent its email.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "volanea_check_delivery"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Filter the list by recipient address.
`limit`	No	Max rows when listing (default 10, max 50).
`source`	No	Narrow the log to one origin: a direct API send, a campaign blast, a workflow step, or mail received at an inbound address. The quickest way to answer "did my workflow actually send anything?" without wading through unrelated traffic.
`status`	No	Filter by delivery state. Worth knowing what these mean before trusting them: `sent` means handed to the provider, NOT that it arrived — `delivered` is the confirmation. `bounced` and `complained` also create a suppression, so that recipient is blocked from future sends. In test mode nothing leaves the building, so messages stop at `sent` and never progress to `delivered`.
`emailId`	No	A specific email-… id for full detail including the rendered body.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Machine-readable failure code to branch on. Present only when success is false.
`data`	No	Present when success is true.
`error`	No	Human-readable failure reason. Present only when success is false.
`success`	Yes	False when the call failed; read `error` and `code` in that case.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, closed, non-destructive read, so the description's job is to add operational color — and it does: rendered HTML is truncated, and detail mode surfaces error state and engagement counters. The caveat that test-mode messages stall at `sent` and never reach `delivered` is genuinely useful context an agent would not otherwise have.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose, then two clearly parallel clauses for the with-`emailId` and without-`emailId` cases. It is dense and slightly run-on with em-dash asides, but every clause contributes scope or semantics.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to cover mode selection and gotchas — which it does, including the test-mode status ceiling and what detail mode returns. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds the important behavioral split — that `emailId` switches the tool from list to full single-message detail including the rendered body. That framing is not obvious from a flat 5-property object schema and helps the agent pick the right call shape.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Inspect the send log") and immediately splits the tool's two distinct behaviors by parameter: detail lookup with `emailId` versus a filtered list without it. It explicitly names the sibling `volanea_send_test_email` as the thing this verifies, so an agent can place it in the workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete when-to-use cases for both modes (confirm a test email rendered; confirm a workflow actually sent) and names the filters available for the list case. It does not state any when-not conditions or point to alternatives such as `volanea_wait_for_email` or inbox search for other kinds of lookups, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

All Volanea 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?