Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es

beel_list_email_deliveries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch email delivery history for an account, including queued and rejected messages. Filter by status, type, recipient, or entity to audit outbound communications.

Instructions

Returns the emails the system recorded on behalf of the account in the path: invoice deliveries, verification, onboarding. Every attempt is recorded, not only the ones that went out — an email stopped by policy is listed with status REJECTED, and one accepted but not dispatched yet as QUEUED, rather than being omitted.

Results are ordered by sent_at descending (configurable via sort_by / sort_order) and can be narrowed by type, status, recipient and related_entity_id. sent_at is the moment the message was handed over, so it is absent while an email is still QUEUED. The account is the one named in the path; the environment is not, and comes from the credential. This operation only reads the history; it does not send or resend anything.

Endpoint: GET /v1/accounts/{account_id}/emails

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, starting at 1. The response echoes it back as `pagination.current_page`.
typeNoFilter by email type (e.g. INVOICE_EMITTED)
limitNoHow many items to return per page. The response echoes it back as `pagination.items_per_page`.
statusNoFilter by delivery status
sort_byNoField to sort bysent_at
recipientNoFilter to emails where any recipient contains the term (case-insensitive)
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.
sort_orderNoSort order directiondesc
related_entity_idNoFilter to emails associated with a given related entity (e.g. an invoice id)
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent, but the description goes far beyond: it discloses that every attempt is recorded (including REJECTED and QUEUED statuses), that sorting is by sent_at descending with sent_at absent while QUEUED, and that the account comes from the path while the environment comes from the credential. These behavioral details are not derivable from annotations alone.

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 well-structured: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by key behavioral details and endpoint. Each sentence adds distinct value (status semantics, sorting, scoping, read-only) with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a 9-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational behaviors: what is recorded, status semantics, sorting, filtering, scoping, and read-only nature. Pagination is largely left to the schema, but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with thorough parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context for sent_at (moment handed over, absent when QUEUED) and clarifies account_id sourcing (path vs. credential), enriching parameter meaning beyond the schema. It also lists filterable parameters, reinforcing their purpose.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'emails the system recorded on behalf of the account', specifying the path categories (invoice deliveries, verification, onboarding). It distinguishes itself as a list operation (vs. the singular beel_get_email_delivery) and explicitly notes it only reads history, differentiating from send tools.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool (to read email history, filter by type/status/recipient/entity) and states it does not send/resend, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, so it stops short of full exclusions or named alternatives.

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/beel-es/beel-mcp'

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