Wraps Email for Amazon SES

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_setup_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check your Amazon SES account's sandbox status and get a recommended next action to send your first email. Read-only, no changes.

Instructions

Check this AWS SES account's sandbox status and get a recommended next action for getting a first send out. Read-only — makes no changes to your AWS account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`region`	Yes
`sandbox`	Yes	True while the account can only send to verified recipients.
`nextAction`	Yes	The single next step that unblocks sending.
`writeEnabled`	Yes	Whether WRAPS_WRITE_ENABLED permits sending.
`maxSend24Hour`	Yes	SES daily send quota.
`sentLast24Hours`	Yes
`enforcementStatus`	Yes	SES account enforcement state, e.g. HEALTHY.
`fromEmailConfigured`	Yes	Whether WRAPS_FROM_EMAIL is set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.1Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only — makes no changes to your AWS account,' reinforcing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also adds that the tool returns both sandbox status and a recommended action, which is behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, takes no parameters, is read-only, and has an output schema. The description fully conveys what the agent should expect: sandbox status plus a recommended next action. No critical information is missing.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing additional the description needs to clarify about inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('this AWS SES account's sandbox status') and an additional purpose ('get a recommended next action for getting a first send out'). It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, especially verify_domain_status and send_email.

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 phrase 'for getting a first send out' implies this tool is for initial sandbox setup and orientation, which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent toward correct selection among the siblings.

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

Deploy Server