Skip to main content
Glama

Get outgoing email

get_outgoing_email
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the delivery status of a previously queued email to confirm if it was sent, including delivery attempts and error codes, without sending again.

Instructions

Reports what became of a message you queued with send_email, reply_to_email, or forward_email: how far it has got, how many delivery attempts it has taken, what a mail server has said about each person it is addressed to, and the error code it stopped on if it stopped. Call this instead of sending again when you are unsure whether a send went through — a second send is a second message in somebody's mailbox and cannot be recalled. It reads a durable record this deployment already holds and speaks to no mail server, so the answer is as fresh as the last delivery attempt rather than a live check with the provider. You can only read back a message you queued yourself, and a message queued by anybody else reads as not found. There is no way to list what a mailbox has sent: this tool answers about one identifier at a time and nothing here enumerates. The answer says nothing about the message itself — no subject, no body, no attachments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outgoingEmailIdYesThe identifier of the queued message, exactly as the sending tool returned it in outgoingEmailId.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYesHow far this message has got.
queuedAtYesWhen the send was first written down, as an ISO 8601 timestamp.
accountIdYesThe configured MailFathom account identifier the message is sent as.
recipientsYesOne entry per person the message is addressed to, in the order the headers name them. These are the addresses the send named and no others.
failureCodeNoThe five-digit MailFathom error code of the failure the last delivery attempt ended in, or absent while no attempt has failed. It is the same code a failed call reports, and it can be present on a message that later succeeds.
attemptCountYesHow many delivery attempts have been made for this message. It is counted before each attempt rather than after it, so a message being attempted right now already shows that attempt.
outgoingEmailIdYesThe stable identifier of the message, the same value the sending tool answered with.
Install Server

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds crucial context: it reads a durable record and does not contact the mail server, so freshness is limited. It also discloses privacy limitations (only own messages) and what the response does not contain (subject/body/attachments). 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 appropriately detailed but well-structured: starts with a clear statement of purpose, then usage, then limitations. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (status reporting, failure conditions, privacy constraints), the description covers all essential aspects. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed. The description compensates for annotations by providing behavioral nuances (freshness, non-live check).

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?

Schema description is 100% covered, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by emphasizing the exact identifier type and provenance (returned by sending tool), reducing confusion. However, it doesn't elaborate on format or examples beyond the schema.

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 tool reports the status and delivery details of a queued message, distinguishing it from sending tools. It specifies the exact resources (queued messages) and contrasts with sibling tools like send_email and reply_to_email.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use: when unsure if a send went through, and when not to: use instead of sending again to avoid duplicate messages. Also clarifies limitations: cannot list mailbox sends and only works for messages queued by the user.

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

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/Krzysztof318/MailFathom'

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