hail

Official

by hail-hq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Get email events

get_email_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

Delivery/engagement timeline (sent→delivered→opened…) for one email.

Instructions

Delivery/engagement timeline (sent→delivered→opened…) for one email.

    Chronological lifecycle events for a single email — use this to see
    exactly what happened to one message (bounced? opened? clicked?)
    rather than the account-wide aggregates ``get_email_stats`` returns.

    Returns ``{"items": [...], "next_cursor": ...}`` where each item has
    ``kind`` (one of sent, delivered, delivery_delayed, bounced,
    complained, rejected, opened, clicked), ``payload``, and
    ``occurred_at``. ``opened`` and ``clicked`` only occur for emails
    sent with an HTML body. A plain-text-only email still gets sent,
    delivered, and bounce events, but opens and clicks are never
    tracked. Pass ``cursor`` from a previous ``next_cursor`` to
    page (``limit`` 1..1000, default 100). On failure returns
    ``{"error": "resource not found"}`` for an unknown id.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`email_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.29.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: the exact event kinds, the HTML-body precondition for opens and clicks, pagination mechanics, and the `{"error": "resource not found"}` failure on unknown ids. These are behavioral traits the annotations cannot express.

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 purpose and the sibling contrast are front-loaded, then the return shape, event kinds, HTML caveat, and pagination follow in descending importance. Every sentence adds distinct information; none is filler.

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 read-only, 3-parameter tool this covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, the enumerable event kinds, the HTML-body precondition that governs whether opens/clicks ever appear, paging, and error behavior. The output-schema duplication is minor and does not detract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden: it explains `cursor` (pass a prior `next_cursor`), `limit` (range 1..1000, default 100), and implies `email_id` semantics via the not-found behavior. Nothing about the three parameters is left undocumented.

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 — a chronological delivery/engagement timeline for one email — and immediately distinguishes it from the account-wide aggregate tool `get_email_stats`. An agent can pick it apart from `get_email`, `get_events`, and `get_email_stats` without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly frames the use case ('see exactly what happened to one message — bounced? opened? clicked?') and names the alternative (`get_email_stats`) plus the condition that selects it (account-wide aggregates). The when-to-use decision is fully resolved.

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