sendgrid_get_templateGet a single transactional email template by id, including its versions (subject + content). SendGrid: GET /v3/templates/{template_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | The template id (dynamic template ids start with "d-"). |
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds value by explaining the response includes versions (subject + content) and provides the API endpoint. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The API endpoint is useful supplementary information without unnecessary verbosity.
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 simple read-only get-by-id tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and returns. It lacks explicit error handling details and does not mention the sibling tool for listing, but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
Schema describes template_id thoroughly (including the 'd-' prefix for dynamic templates), and coverage is 100%. The description repeats 'by id' but does not add new parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Get a single transactional email template by id', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'sendgrid_list_templates' by emphasizing 'single' and 'by id'.
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 clearly implies use when a specific template ID is known, versus listing all templates. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.