Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BumbleBox

by ai.bumblebox
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Reply to the sender

send_reply

Replies to the sender of one received email, and only to them (no Cc, no Bcc, no attachment), from the address the email was written to. What happens next is the level the user set in BumbleBox for this kind of reply: a draft, a reply waiting for one tap (the default), or a reply that leaves after a delay the user can cancel. Anything that commits the user (amounts, bank details, acceptance, contracts, dates, links) always waits for the user, and so does a reply from an address the user has not verified (needsIdentity). The result says which one applied.

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": {
      "email_id": "<email_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesPlain-text reply body.
email_idYesEmail id, as returned by search_emails or list_to_answer.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
replyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that no Cc/Bcc/attachments are possible, which sending address is used, the three dispatch modes (draft / one-tap / delayed-cancellable send), and the escalation rule for committing content and unverified identities. It also notes the result reports which mode applied, which the annotations alone never convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and its hard limits, then the behavioral routing. The middle sentence is dense with parenthetical clauses but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; minor tightening would help.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still points at what the result indicates. Combined with the dispatch-mode and escalation disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and set expectations with the user.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including that email_id comes from search_emails or list_to_answer. The description adds no additional syntax or format guidance for either parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Replies to the sender of one received email') plus tight scope constraints (no Cc, no Bcc, no attachment, sent from the address the email was written to). This distinguishes it from the sibling draft_reply in practice, though it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear situational context: replies only to the original sender, and the outcome depends on the user's configured autonomy level. It also spells out the exemption cases (committing content, unverified identity) that force user confirmation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or saying when to prefer draft_reply.

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

All BumbleBox toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources