sendgrid_get_contact_countGet the total number of Marketing Campaigns contacts on your account. Returns { contact_count, billable_count }. SendGrid: GET /v3/marketing/contacts/count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool as a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure ({ contact_count, billable_count }) and the underlying API endpoint (GET /v3/marketing/contacts/count), which helps set expectations beyond the annotation.
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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the return fields without any fluff or repetition of the schema or annotations.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It clearly states what is returned and includes the API endpoint. Given the simplicity, it provides all necessary context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (vacuously). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details because there are none to describe.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('total number of Marketing Campaigns contacts'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or search contacts. It also mentions the exact return fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it compared to alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or direct the user to a sibling tool for different use cases. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: send mail, manage contacts (upsert/count/search), templates (get/list), suppression lists (bounces/unsubscribes), marketing lists, stats, and health check. No overlaps or ambiguous boundaries.
All tools follow a consistent 'sendgrid_' prefix with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_template, list_bounces, send_mail). The only minor deviation is 'ping' for health check, but it's a conventional verb-only name and doesn't break the overall consistency.
11 tools is well-scoped for a SendGrid server, covering sending, contacts, templates, suppression, stats, and health. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
Core email sending, contact management, and read operations for templates/suppression are covered. However, there are no write operations for templates (create/update/delete) or suppression list management (remove), which are minor gaps that agents can work around by using the existing tools.