mcp-saas-toolkit

resend_get_email

Retrieve delivery status and details of a sent email, including timestamps and error information, using its ID.

Instructions

Retrieve details and delivery status of a previously sent email. Returns metadata including delivery timestamps and any error information.

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": {
      "email_id": "<email_id>"
    },
    "name": "resend_get_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email_id`	Yes	The Resend email ID returned from resend_send_email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returned metadata (timestamps, errors) but does not disclose potential side effects or authorization needs. Since this is a read operation, the transparency is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes necessary context. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned, though it could optionally mention scope (e.g., only recent emails).

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying the email ID comes from resend_send_email, which contextualizes the parameter beyond the schema's type definition.

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 tool retrieves details and delivery status of a previously sent email, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sending tools like resend_send_email and resend_send_batch.

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 implies usage after sending an email, referencing the email ID from resend_send_email. It does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.