Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BeeL MCP server

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_email_delivery

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a recorded email delivery with its HTML/plain-text body, attachments, and any batch invoices; body availability depends on provider retention.

Instructions

Returns one recorded email with its message body (HTML and plain text), its attachments and, for batch emails, the invoices it carried.

  • body_available: the body is fetched live and is only available while the message has a provider message id and the provider still retains it; otherwise it is false and html_body / text_body are null.

  • An email that never left: QUEUED or REJECTED, it has no body for that reason.

BeeL API endpoint: GET /v1/accounts/{account_id}/emails/{email_id} (reference: https://docs.beel.es)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "email_id": "<email_id>"
    },
    "name": "beel_get_email_delivery"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
email_idYesEmail delivery id
account_idYesYour own account, or an account you provisioned. It — not the credential — decides which account the operation acts on; a `403` is returned when you do not reach it, the same response an account that does not exist gets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description instead contributes the non-obvious behavior: the body is fetched live, is only present while a provider message id exists and the provider still retains the message, and html_body/text_body are null otherwise. It also explains that QUEUED/REJECTED emails have no body by design, which prevents an agent from misreading a null body as an error.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the bulleted body_available / never-left notes are easy to scan. The trailing 'BeeL API endpoint' line and docs URL are mildly expendable, but nothing is genuinely redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does a reasonable job: body, attachments, invoices, and the body_available flag are all explained. It stops short of describing the rest of the envelope (status, recipients, timestamps), so an agent still does not know the full response shape, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and only two parameters exist, both already documented in the schema (including the account_id scoping and 403 caveat), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no new meaning about the parameters themselves; its detail is about return values rather than inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one recorded email') plus the exact payload it carries: HTML/plain-text body, attachments, and the invoices for batch emails. The singular 'one recorded email' distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling beel_list_email_deliveries without the agent needing to open either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the tool takes an email_id, so an agent can infer it is the detail-lookup counterpart to the list endpoint. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have an id, use beel_list_email_deliveries to find one' routing statement, and no note about when indicators (beel_get_email_delivery_indicators) would be the better call.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools