Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_email_delivery_indicators

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve email delivery indicators for multiple entity IDs, showing email count, latest status, and send time to assess delivery state without loading full history.

Instructions

Returns, for each related entity id given, how many emails the history holds for it, the status of the most recent one and when it was sent. Lets you show the state of an entity's email without loading its full history.

  • last_status: carries whatever the latest attempt ended in, REJECTED and QUEUED included, so a count above zero does not mean an email reached anyone.

  • Ids with no associated emails: omitted from the response rather than returned with count 0.

Closed catalogue. This collection is fixed and bounded by the request itself — at most one indicator per id in related_entity_ids: it carries no pagination, it takes no page/limit, and every response holds the whole set.

Endpoint: GET /v1/accounts/{account_id}/email-indicators

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
related_entity_idsYesComma-separated list of related entity ids (e.g. invoice ids)

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing non-obvious behaviors: last_status can be REJECTED or QUEUED so a positive count does not imply delivery, entities without emails are omitted rather than returned as zero, and the collection is a closed catalogue with no pagination or page/limit parameters.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core return contract, followed by clearly bulleted edge-case semantics and a closed-catalogue note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the endpoint line is a useful bonus rather than noise.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the response contains, how to interpret last_status, the omission behavior for ids without emails, and the absence of pagination. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so account_id and related_entity_ids are already fully documented. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing that the response is per related entity id. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('email delivery indicators'), and the exact output contract: per related entity id, count, last status, and send time. It also distinguishes itself from sibling history/list tools by framing it as a summary 'without loading its full history.'

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly frames when to use the tool: to show an entity's email state without fetching full history. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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