Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailganer API MCP

Mailganer API MCP

by dkanster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_api_endpoint_doc

Retrieve cached Mailganer API documentation for a specific endpoint, including linked Postman requests for quick API testing.

Instructions

Get cached Mailganer API doc page with linked Postman requests

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_api_endpoint_doc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesPage slug, e.g. email-add or trigger-send-v2

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description notes the tool is 'cached,' hinting at performance and possibly stale data, but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or response behavior. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it could be slightly restructured to front-load key information. Still efficient and clear.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and input. However, it lacks information about the response format or error conditions, which would improve completeness.

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% with the 'slug' parameter having a clear example, and the description adds no further detail. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already suffices.

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 'Get cached Mailganer API doc page with linked Postman requests' clearly specifies the action (Get), resource (cached Mailganer API doc page), and additional feature (linked Postman requests), distinguishing it from siblings like get_api_overview or get_linked_postman_request.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest other tools for related tasks, leaving the agent without decision support.

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