Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Groundmail

by dev.groundmail.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send test webhook event

send_test_webhook_event

Simulate a webhook event (POST /emails/test) for CI or local webhook testing. Optionally deliver to subscribed endpoints.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventYesWebhook event type to simulate
tenantNoPut this tenant on the test event, to test endpoints that only receive some tenants. The tenant's external id (your id for that customer) or its Groundmail id
deliverNoWhen true (default), enqueue delivery to account webhooks
email_idNoOptional existing email id (msg_…)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the simulated event was built
payloadNoThe event payload that was (or would be) delivered
deliveredYesTrue when delivery to subscribed endpoints was started
deliveriesNoPer-endpoint results when delivery ran synchronously; empty otherwise

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / event / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "email.received",
-  "email.sent",
-  "email.delivered",
-  "email.delivery_delayed",
-  "email.bounced",
-  "email.complained",
-  "email.opened",
-  "email.clicked",
-  "email.failed",
-  "email.suppressed",
-  "email.scheduled"
-]New value: +[
+  "email.received",
+  "email.sent",
+  "email.delivered",
+  "email.delivery_delayed",
+  "email.held",
+  "email.bounced",
+  "email.complained",
+  "email.opened",
+  "email.clicked",
+  "email.failed",
+  "email.suppressed",
+  "email.scheduled"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tenant
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Put this tenant on the test event, to test endpoints that only receive some tenants. The tenant's external id (your id for that customer) or its Groundmail id",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context by stating that it can optionally deliver to subscribed endpoints, which warns the agent about a potential real-world side effect (triggering webhooks) not directly conveyed by the annotations alone.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste; the core purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, followed by the optional delivery note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides sufficient purpose, usage context, and side-effect disclosure for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No critical information is missing for a testing utility.

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%, so all four parameters are already well documented. The description only alludes to the 'deliver' behavior and adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema, making a baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('webhook event'), includes the endpoint path, and frames the purpose as CI or local webhook testing. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_email or create_webhook, which perform different actions.

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?

It gives a clear context ('for CI or local webhook testing') and notes that delivery to subscribed endpoints is optional, which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Groundmail toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources