Sendblox

List Replies

list_replies

Read-onlyIdempotent

APP: Lists previously stored inbound mail for outbound email campaigns. Campaign sends do not record new replies here. A Replies address is the Reply-To. With no Replies address, an authenticated companyname.sendblox.io subdomain is the Reply-To only when its MX record resolves to mx.sendgrid.net; inbound mail is forwarded to the organisation and is not stored. Otherwise that route is one-way so a reply cannot bounce. A verified custom domain whose inbound host is a subdomain uses prefix@that domain when no reply-to is set. One-way only when none of those routes exist. Does not invent NLP classifications.

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": "list_replies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`campaignId`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	No
`result`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`summary`	No
`blockers`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`readiness`	No
`requestId`	Yes
`retryable`	No
`nextPossibleActions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds relevant context that replies are only stored under certain Reply-To/MX conditions and that some routes are one-way, but most of this routing detail is tangential to the listing operation itself.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The useful purpose statement is front-loaded, but it is followed by a long, dense paragraph about Reply-To routing, MX records, and subdomain behavior that is disproportionate for a simple list tool. Much of this text does not earn its place in a definition for list_replies.

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

Completeness2/5

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 safety, but the description leaves the two input parameters completely undocumented. For a list tool with filter and pagination parameters, this is a significant completeness gap despite the routing context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention limit or campaignId at all. It therefore does not compensate for the schema gap or explain how either parameter affects the listing.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: it lists previously stored inbound mail for outbound campaigns. It also clarifies that campaign sends do not record replies here, which helps distinguish this from campaign-send behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_reply.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives domain context about reply routing but no explicit guidance on when to call list_replies versus get_reply or other siblings. It does not mention when to use limit or campaignId, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives beyond the note that campaign sends do not record new replies here.

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

All Sendblox 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?