Skip to main content
Glama
avivshafir

revenuebase-mcp-server

batch_email_submission

Submit a file for batch email processing through the Revenuebase API to automate email campaigns efficiently.

Instructions

Submits a file reference for batch email processing using the Revenuebase API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'batch_email_submission' tool, decorated with @mcp.tool() which also serves as registration. It submits a filename to the Revenuebase API for batch email processing.
    @mcp.tool()
    def batch_email_submission(filename: str) -> dict:
        """
        Submits a file reference for batch email processing using the Revenuebase API.
        """
        if not api_key:
            raise RuntimeError("Environment variable REVENUEBASE_API_KEY is not set")
        url = "https://api.revenuebase.ai/v1/batch-process-email"
        headers = {
            "x-key": api_key,
            "Content-Type": "application/json",
            "Accept": "application/json",
        }
        payload = {"filename": filename}
        resp = requests.post(url, json=payload, headers=headers, verify=False)
        resp.raise_for_status()
        return resp.json()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'submits' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is asynchronous, what permissions are required, potential rate limits, or what happens after submission (e.g., does it return a process ID?). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without sacrificing brevity. The structure is clear but minimal.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, a process ID), error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a submission tool with potential side effects, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'file reference' vaguely, without explaining what 'filename' represents (e.g., a local file path, a URL, a pre-uploaded reference). No details on format, constraints, or examples are provided, leaving the parameter poorly defined beyond the schema's basic type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('submits') and resource ('file reference for batch email processing'), but lacks specificity about what the processing entails. It mentions the Revenuebase API, which provides some context, but doesn't clearly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'batch_process_email_status' or 'queued_process' that might handle related batch operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'batch_process_email_status', 'cancel_process', and 'queued_process', the description offers no indication of prerequisites, sequencing, or distinctions between submission and status-checking tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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/avivshafir/revenuebase-mcp-server'

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