email

List sent emails

listSentEmails

Read-onlyIdempotent

List outbound emails sent by this org, with cursor pagination and filters. Bodies are omitted from list rows to keep responses small — use getSentEmail to fetch a specific row with full body. Useful for auditing delivery status, finding bounced sends, or checking gate-denied attempts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of sent emails to return (1–100, default 50).
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from a previous response's `meta.cursor` field.
`status`	No	Filter to rows in this status. Use "scheduled" to find pending scheduled sends (cancelable via cancelScheduledSend) and "canceled" for ones already canceled.
`date_to`	No	Inclusive upper bound on created_at (ISO 8601).
`date_from`	No	Inclusive lower bound on created_at (ISO 8601).
`request_id`	No	Filter to the row matching a specific server-issued request_id from a /send-mail response.
`idempotency_key`	No	Filter to rows with the given client idempotency key.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`statusText`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds that bodies are omitted to keep responses small, which is a key behavioral trait beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

The description is only two sentences, each with clear value: first sentence states purpose and key features, second sentence gives use cases and tool alternatives. No filler words.

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?

Despite 7 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what the tool does, pagination behavior, body omission, and common use cases. Output schema is present, so return values need not be explained.

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 parameters are already documented. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond summarizing the purpose of filters and pagination. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the action (List), resource (outbound emails), and key features (cursor pagination and filters). It distinguishes itself from getSentEmail by noting that bodies are omitted. This provides a specific verb+resource scope.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (auditing delivery, finding bounced sends, checking gate-denied attempts) and directs users to getSentEmail for full email bodies. It does not list negative cases, but the positive guidance is strong.

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

All email tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: domain management (addDomain, verifyDomain), sending (sendEmail, replyToEmail), receiving (getEmail, listEmails), webhooks (createEndpoint, listWebhookDeliveries), status (getAccount, getInboxStatus), etc. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as listDomains, createFilter, downloadEmailAttachments, and getSentEmail. The verbs (get, list, create, delete, send, reply, etc.) are used predictably, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

29 tools is slightly on the high side but still reasonable for an email server covering domains, sending, receiving, webhooks, filters, and status. Each tool serves a specific purpose and earns its place, though some consolidation might be possible.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core email workflows: domain setup (add, verify, list), sending/receiving, threading, webhook lifecycle, and filtering. Minor gaps exist, such as missing deleteDomain or updateEndpoint, but the surface is largely complete for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?