Skip to main content
Glama
Garoth

SendGrid MCP Server

by Garoth

list_single_sends

Retrieve all single sends from your SendGrid account to view and manage email campaigns.

Instructions

List all single sends in your SendGrid account

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler logic for the 'list_single_sends' tool call. It invokes the SendGridService.listSingleSends() method and returns a formatted JSON response containing id, name, status, and send_at for each single send.
    case 'list_single_sends':
      const allSingleSends = await service.listSingleSends();
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify(allSingleSends.map((s: SendGridSingleSend) => ({
            id: s.id,
            name: s.name,
            status: s.status,
            send_at: s.send_at
          })), null, 2)
        }]
      };
  • Input schema for the 'list_single_sends' tool, which requires no parameters.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {},
      required: []
    }
  • Registration of the 'list_single_sends' tool in the getToolDefinitions array, including name, description, and schema.
    {
      name: 'list_single_sends',
      description: 'List all single sends in your SendGrid account',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
        required: []
      }
    },
  • Helper method in SendGridService that performs the actual API call to list all single sends from SendGrid.
    async listSingleSends(): Promise<SendGridSingleSend[]> {
      const [response] = await this.client.request({
        method: 'GET',
        url: '/v3/marketing/singlesends'
      });
      return (response.body as { result: SendGridSingleSend[] }).result || [];
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all single sends') but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, permissions, output format) or usage context, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke it correctly. While the tool is simple (0 parameters), the description fails to compensate for missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, avoiding redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since it doesn't add unnecessary information beyond the schema, though it doesn't explicitly note the lack of parameters, preventing a perfect score.

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 description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all single sends in your SendGrid account'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_single_send' (singular vs. plural) or 'list_templates'/'list_contact_lists' (different resource types), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_single_send' for retrieving a specific single send or 'list_templates' for other resource types, leaving usage context unclear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Garoth/sendgrid-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server