Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_list_email_deliveries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all emails recorded for an account, including invoice, verification, and onboarding messages, to review delivery history and statuses. Read-only.

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. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / $defs / EmailDeliverySortBy / description
      Previous value: -"Email delivery field the list is ordered by."New value: +"Email delivery field the list is ordered by: `sent_at` the instant of the attempt,\n`status` the delivery status, `email_type` the kind of email.\n"
  2. 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
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further: every attempt is recorded including REJECTED/QUEUED, ordering defaults to sent_at descending, and sent_at is absent while an email is QUEUED. Minor overlap with the schema's status enum doc keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by tightly scoped bullets covering order, filters, sent_at semantics, and scope. Slight redundancy in restating the REJECTED/QUEUED behavior that the schema also documents.

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 read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, ordering, status semantics, and the account/environment scope split. Nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes filters (type, status, recipient, related_entity_id) and sort controls, but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already spells out.

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 the emails the system recorded on behalf of the account') and enumerates the covered kinds (invoice deliveries, verification, onboarding). It also draws a hard line against the send/resend siblings by declaring 'It only reads the history; it does not send or resend anything.'

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 'only reads the history; does not send or resend' clause effectively tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus send_invoice / create_invoice_delivery. It stops short of naming a specific sibling such as beel_get_email_delivery for single-record lookups, so no explicit alternative routing is given.

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