Check recorded email events, newest first, to confirm a POST was received or debug why a sequence did not trigger. Filter by name or email.
List recorded events, newest first — the surface for confirming a POST landed and for debugging a sequence that did not trigger. Filter by name and/or email. Requires an API key (mk_live_…).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which covers the safety aspect. The description adds value by specifying the API key requirement ('mk_live_...') which is not in annotations, and stating the ordering behavior. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and ordering, then quickly adds use cases, filters, and auth requirement. All information is relevant and efficiently stated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, ordering, filters, and auth. It doesn't describe the response shape, but given the lack of an output schema, the agent might still be partially in the dark about return fields. However, for a list tool with such a simple interface, this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description's mention of filtering by 'name' and/or 'email' is the only source of parameter insight. Since the schema is empty)Skip scoring down as baseline 4 for zero params, and the description fully compensates by listing the expected optional filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('List recorded events') and adds a concrete ordering constraint ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from a generic list. It also hints at its specific role (confirming POSTs and debugging sequences), but it doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear use cases ('surface for confirming a POST landed and for debugging a sequence that did not trigger') which guide when to call it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the many sibling list tools (e.g., mailkite_list_routes, mailkite_list_event_names), so the guidance is contextual but not exclusive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.