get_emailRetrieve a sent email by ID to view its delivery status and event history, including sent, delivered, opened, and bounced events.
Get one sent email with its status and events (sent, delivered, opened, bounced, …).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The email ID (msg_…). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned payload — delivery status and lifecycle events (sent, delivered, opened, bounced) — which is the main unknown for a read tool with no output schema. It stops short of saying what happens on a missing/invalid ID.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the returned-payload detail is packed into a parenthetical instead of a second sentence. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. Only edge behavior (not found, invalid ID) is unaddressed, a minor gap given the low complexity.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'msg_…' ID format. The description's 'one sent email' only restates that a single identifier is expected, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb plus resource ('Get one sent email') and it names the payload (status and events), which separates it from list_emails and get_inbound by implication. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from 'one sent email' rather than stated.
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?
Retrieval of a single email by ID is implied by 'one sent email', and the sent-only scope subtly distinguishes it from get_inbound. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion (e.g., use list_emails for enumeration), and no mention of what to do if the ID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.