Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apollo-mcp

apollo-mcp

by dyngai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

apollo_get_emailer_message_activities

Retrieve opens, clicks, replies, and bounces for a specific emailer message ID to analyze engagement.

Instructions

Get engagement activities (opens, clicks, replies, bounces) for a single emailer message ID.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "apollo_get_emailer_message_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idYesApollo emailer_message ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation (get activities) with no side effects. Although it could mention authentication or validation, the simplicity of the tool makes it sufficient.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource, explicitly listing activity types. Optimal length.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, scope, and input adequately. Could mention read-only nature, but overall complete for a simple getter.

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 a meaningful parameter description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'for a single emailer message ID', which already aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get', the resource 'engagement activities', and specifies four types (opens, clicks, replies, bounces). It also scopes to 'a single emailer message ID', distinguishing it from siblings like apollo_search_emailer_messages which lists messages.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you have a specific message ID and need engagement data, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it compared to siblings, nor mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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