Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_list_email_deliveries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Review recorded email deliveries for your account—invoices, verification, onboarding—and filter by status, type, recipient, or related entity to trace every attempt.

Instructions

Returns the emails the system recorded on behalf of the account in the path: invoice deliveries, verification, onboarding. It only reads the history; it does not send or resend anything.

  • 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.

  • Order: by sent_at descending, configurable with sort_by / sort_order.

  • Filters: type, status, recipient and related_entity_id.

  • sent_at: the moment the message was handed over, so it is absent while an email is still QUEUED.

  • Scope: the account is the one named in the path; the environment is not, and comes from the credential.

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)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • removedInput schema / $defs / EmailDeliverySortBy / example
      Removed value: -"sent_at"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / SortOrder / example
      Removed value: -"desc"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations already covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context: every attempt is recorded including REJECTED and QUEUED, ordering defaults to sent_at descending, sent_at is absent for queued emails, and environment scope comes from the credential. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a compact bullet list for behavioral nuances. Each bullet adds information not present in the schema or annotations, and the endpoint line at the end is a useful reference. No wasted sentences.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context: scope, read-only nature, filtering, ordering, and the subtle sent_at behavior. Combined with the fully-documented input schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly without relying on external assumptions.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description still adds value by grouping the filter parameters (type, status, recipient, related_entity_id), explaining sent_at's meaning in relation to QUEUED status, and noting that sort_by/sort_order are configurable. This supplements the schema without redundant repetition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the emails the system recorded on behalf of the account in the path: invoice deliveries, verification, onboarding.' It then immediately differentiates itself from sending tools with 'it does not send or resend anything,' and the sibling list includes send/create delivery tools, so an agent can tell this is a read-only history listing.

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 gives clear context: this is for reading recorded email history, not for sending or resending, and it explains the scope of the account and environment. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' conditions beyond saying it does not send/resend, but the read-only framing is unambiguous.

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