send16-mcp

get_contact_timeline

Retrieve a contact's complete activity timeline including emails, opens, clicks, automation enrollments, and topic changes.

Instructions

Get a contact's full activity timeline: emails received, events fired, opens, clicks, automation enrollments, topic changes.

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": {
      "contactId": "<contactId>"
    },
    "name": "get_contact_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size
`apiKey`	No	Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor
`contactId`	Yes	Contact ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.7Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention rate limits, authorization needs, whether it's read-only, or what happens on invalid contactId. It only describes the data returned, lacking transparency beyond the obvious.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the types of activities returned. However, it omits pagination behavior (implied by cursor parameter) and error handling. Still, it is fairly complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 all four parameters described. The description adds overarching context (what the response includes) but does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'contact's activity timeline'. It enumerates the types of activities included (emails, events, opens, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_contact_health_score or list_contacts.

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 the tool is for retrieving a contact's full activity timeline, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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

Deploy Server