get_site_emailOne site email: subject, preheader, Liquid source (emails/.liquid or default), objects ({{ order.total }}…), parts (keep required ones). Simple blocks (div, p, h1-h3, a, img) with Tailwind; no forms, buttons, video or data-. A link with bg- is a button.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Site id. | |
| kind | Yes | See list_site_emails. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / kind / descriptionPrevious value: -"Email kind from list_site_emails."New value: +"See list_site_emails."Input schema / properties / kind / enumPrevious value: -[
- "order_receipt",
- "subscription_welcome",
- "order_shipped",
- "gift_card_gifted",
- "gift_card_self",
- "customer_login",
- "download_delivery",
- "download_update"
-]New value: +[
+ "order_receipt",
+ "subscription_welcome",
+ "order_shipped",
+ "booking_confirmed",
+ "booking_requested",
+ "booking_declined",
+ "booking_balance",
+ "booking_deposit",
+ "booking_deposit_link",
+ "booking_agreement",
+ "booking_agreement_sign",
+ "booking_abandoned",
+ "gift_card_gifted",
+ "gift_card_self",
+ "customer_login",
+ "download_delivery",
+ "download_update"
+]Input schema / properties / kind / enumPrevious value: -[
- "order_receipt",
- "subscription_welcome",
- "gift_card_gifted",
- "gift_card_self",
- "customer_login",
- "download_delivery",
- "download_update"
-]New value: +[
+ "order_receipt",
+ "subscription_welcome",
+ "order_shipped",
+ "gift_card_gifted",
+ "gift_card_self",
+ "customer_login",
+ "download_delivery",
+ "download_update"
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Site id. Pass it on every call."New value: +"Site id."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context about the returned email: it lists the fields (subject, preheader, Liquid source, objects, parts), specifies allowed HTML blocks (div, p, h1-h3, a, img with Tailwind), and forbids forms, buttons, video, and data-* attributes.
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?
The description is dense and jargon-heavy, packed into three sentences with no clear front-loading of the core action. The opening fragment 'One site email:' is not a proper lead, and details about Liquid syntax and block restrictions dominate, though the length is not excessive.
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?
Given a simple getter with two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides rich context about the email's content structure, allowed elements, and restrictions. It does not explicitly state the return is a single email object, but enough detail is given for an agent to understand what will be retrieved.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the `kind` parameter by explaining that it maps to a Liquid file path (emails/<kind>.liquid) with a default fallback. It doesn't clarify the `id` parameter beyond the schema's 'Site id.', but the extra detail on `kind` justifies a 4.
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?
The description opens with 'One site email:' followed by a list of components, but never states the action (e.g., 'Retrieve'). It implies the tool returns an email template, but the missing verb makes the purpose vague and requires the tool name to disambiguate.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of siblings like list_site_emails or preview_site_email. The description focuses entirely on the email's internal structure and content restrictions, not on selection criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.