Which integrations are available for this server?

Allows GitHub Copilot to query Cakemail API documentation for precise endpoint details and authentication information.

How do I use Cakemail API MCP Server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Cakemail API MCP Server How do I authenticate with the Cakemail API?" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

Cakemail API MCP Server

Official

by cakemail

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Cakemail API MCP Server

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that exposes Cakemail's email marketing API documentation to AI agents, eliminating hallucination and enabling accurate code generation.

Overview

The Cakemail API MCP Server provides AI coding assistants (Claude, Cursor, GitHub Copilot) with direct access to authoritative Cakemail API specifications. Instead of guessing endpoint URLs, parameters, and authentication details, AI agents can query the MCP server for exact specifications from Cakemail's OpenAPI documentation.

Related MCP server: AI Agent Template MCP Server

Features

Zero-hallucination guarantee: AI agents get facts from OpenAPI spec, not statistical guesses
Real-time API documentation: Always reflects the latest API state
Seamless integration: Works with Claude Desktop, Cursor, and other MCP-compatible tools
Fast queries: <500ms response time for spec lookups

Installation

⭐ Easiest Method (Recommended)

One command to install with Claude Code/Desktop:

# Using npx (works for everyone!)
claude mcp add cakemail-api-docs -- npx cakemail-api-docs

# Or using uvx (Python developers)
claude mcp add cakemail-api-docs -- uvx cakemail-api-docs-mcp

That's it! No manual configuration needed.

Alternative Methods

Method 1: Using npm

npm install -g cakemail-api-docs
claude mcp add cakemail-api-docs cakemail-api-docs

Method 2: Using pip

pip install cakemail-api-docs-mcp
claude mcp add cakemail-api-docs cakemail-api-docs-mcp

Method 3: From source (for development)

git clone https://github.com/cakemail/cakemail-api-documentation-mcp.git
cd cakemail-api-documentation-mcp
uv pip install -e ".[dev]"

See INSTALLATION.md for detailed installation options.

Quick Start

Using with Claude Desktop

After running claude mcp add, restart Claude Desktop. You should see a 🔌 icon indicating the server is connected.

Test it:

"Can you check the health of the Cakemail MCP server?"
"List all Cakemail API endpoints"
"Show me how to authenticate with the Cakemail API"

Manual Configuration

If not using claude mcp add, edit ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cakemail": {
      "command": "cakemail-api-docs-mcp"
    }
  }
}

Running Standalone

cakemail-api-docs-mcp

Or using Python module:

python -m cakemail_mcp

Integrating with Claude Desktop

Add to your Claude Desktop configuration (~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on macOS):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cakemail": {
      "command": "cakemail-api-docs-mcp"
    }
  }
}

Development

Setup

# Clone repository
git clone https://github.com/cakemail/cakemail-api-docs-mcp.git
cd cakemail-api-docs-mcp

# Install with development dependencies
uv pip install -e .[dev]

Running Tests

pytest

Code Quality

# Format code
black src tests

# Lint
ruff check src tests

# Type check
mypy src

License

MIT License - see LICENSE for details.

Contributing

Contributions are welcome! Please see our contributing guidelines for details.

Support

Available Tools

5 tools

cakemail_call_apiD

Execute a Cakemail API call.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Optional request body for POST/PUT/PATCH requests
`path`	Yes	API endpoint path (e.g., "/campaigns/{id}"). Use actual values for path parameters.
`method`	Yes	HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE)
`headers`	No	Optional HTTP headers (e.g., {"Authorization": "Bearer token"})
`query_params`	No	Optional query parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention authentication requirements, mutation effects, rate limits, or any side effects of executing API calls.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief (one sentence) but fails to 'earn its place' as it adds no useful information beyond the name. It is under-specified, not efficiently concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the tool's role among siblings, preconditions, or operational context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it does not explain parameter relationships or usage patterns.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Execute a Cakemail API call' is a tautology of the tool name and does not distinguish this generic API caller from sibling tools like get_endpoint or list_endpoints, which are specific API endpoints. It lacks the verb+resource specificity needed to differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it give context on scenarios (e.g., direct API access, unsupported endpoints).

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

cakemail_get_authA

Get Cakemail API authentication documentation.

Returns: Authentication requirements and configuration details, or error response if spec cannot be loaded

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions return values ('authentication requirements' or error), but omits details like side effects, data sensitivity, or rate limits. The description is too minimal for a tool with zero annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with actionable verb. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema. Description covers the basic task and return types. Adequate for this low complexity, though could mention error scenarios or prerequisites.

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?

Zero parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 as per rules. Description adds value by clarifying the tool's purpose (getting authentication docs) beyond the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get Cakemail API authentication documentation' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('authentication documentation'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like cakemail_health, cakemail_list_endpoints, etc., which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., cakemail_get_endpoint). The description does not indicate prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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

cakemail_get_endpointA

Get detailed specification for a specific Cakemail API endpoint.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	API endpoint path (e.g., "/campaigns/{id}")
`method`	Yes	HTTP method (e.g., "GET", "POST")

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 transparency. It does not disclose any traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description merely repeats the purpose without adding behavioral context.

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 with no extraneous words. It is highly concise and gets straight to the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the output schema exists and the description is adequate for a simple specification retrieval tool, it lacks any behavioral details or usage context. For a tool with no annotations, more completeness would be expected, but it meets a minimally acceptable level given the presence of output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% (both 'path' and 'method' are described in the input schema), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not provide any additional context beyond what the schema already offers, meeting the baseline for high 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 states the tool retrieves 'detailed specification for a specific Cakemail API endpoint', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cakemail_health, cakemail_list_endpoints, cakemail_call_api, which serve different purposes.

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 used when needing endpoint specifications, but it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus siblings or provide any context about prerequisites or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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

cakemail_healthA

Check if Cakemail MCP server is operational.

Returns: Health status information including server version and endpoint count

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: returns health status (server version, endpoint count). No hidden destructive or mutating actions.

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 action, minimal waste. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given zero parameters and no annotations, description fully covers purpose and output. Output schema exists but not needed to explain return format.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no param info because none needed. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Check if...operational' on a specific resource 'Cakemail MCP server'. Distinct from siblings which handle listing endpoints, auth, and API calls.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the health check purpose is self-evident. Given simplicity, minimal guidance is acceptable.

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

cakemail_list_endpointsB

List all available Cakemail API endpoints.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No	Optional tag to filter endpoints (e.g., "Account", "Campaigns")

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'list all available' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The output schema might cover return details, but description adds minimal context.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on filtering behavior or when the list might be incomplete, which could affect completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter's purpose from the schema without adding new meaning. No additional value beyond the schema.

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 states it lists all available Cakemail API endpoints with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like cakemail_get_endpoint (single endpoint) and cakemail_health (health check).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer cakemail_get_endpoint for a specific endpoint. The description lacks exclusionary context.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

5 tool updatesv0.3.1Jul 30, 2026
- First observedcakemail_call_api
- First observedcakemail_get_auth
- First observedcakemail_get_endpoint
- First observedcakemail_health
- First observedcakemail_list_endpoints

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: health check, endpoint listing, endpoint details, auth documentation, and API execution. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'cakemail_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., cakemail_health, cakemail_list_endpoints), making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With only 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its role as a wrapper around the Cakemail API. Each tool provides essential functionality without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server includes health checks, endpoint discovery, auth info, and a generic API call tool, covering the core needs. However, it lacks dedicated CRUD tools for specific resources, relying on the generic call_api to fill gaps.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

ClawLinkOAuth
dev.claw-link
MCP server connecting AI agents to 100+ apps (Gmail, Slack, Notion, GitHub) via one-click OAuth.
App Automation Workplace & Productivity
24
anotherai
dev.anotherai
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Agent Orchestration Autonomous Agents Testing & QA Tools
2
microservices.sh
sh.microservices
MCP server for AI agents to plan, verify, and deploy Cloudflare-native apps.
Cloud Platforms Agent Orchestration Developer Tools
21
CustomGPT.ai
ai.customgpt.mcp
The CustomGPT.ai MCP server is a fully managed, RAG-powered endpoint that connects large language models with private knowledge bases and external data sources. It provides tools for retrieval-augmented generation queries (send_message), data ingestion (upload_file), and source listing, enabling AI agents to query private documents like PDFs with high accuracy and real-time citations.
RAG Systems Knowledge & Memory Search
2

Related MCP Servers

OpenAPI to Model Context
Agent Orchestration API Testing
gujord
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A proxy server that bridges AI agents and external APIs by dynamically translating OpenAPI specifications into standardized MCP tools, enabling seamless interaction without custom integration code.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-12-14 00:33 UTC)
69
MIT
AI Agent Template MCP Server
Code Execution Developer Tools Autonomous Agents
bswa006
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP server that enhances AI agents' coding capabilities by providing zero hallucinations, improved code quality, security-first approach, high test coverage, and efficient context management.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-08 16:42 UTC)
15
27
1
MIT
Tyra Advanced Memory MCP
bigrock776
-
license
Not graded
quality
Not graded
maintenance
A sophisticated MCP server providing advanced memory capabilities with RAG, hallucination detection, and enterprise-grade AI infrastructure for intelligent agent ecosystems.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-17 23:07 UTC)
-
docpilot-mcp
Developer Tools Documentation Access
neromtoobad
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
An MCP server that provides tools to fetch live, version-accurate documentation, changelogs, examples, and method signatures for npm and PyPI packages, preventing AI coding agents from hallucinating stale APIs.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-17 10:03 UTC)
21
ISC

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cakemail/cakemail-api-documentation-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server