Skip to main content
Glama

inbox-preview

by ai.powerline
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

submit_preview

Submit an email for rendering across email clients — full HTML, or a complete raw .eml (base64). Provide exactly one of html/eml. Returns a job ID to poll for results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emlNoA complete raw RFC 822 message (.eml), base64-encoded — inserted verbatim (real headers, multipart, attachments). Max 10MB decoded. Provide exactly one of html or eml.
htmlNoThe full email HTML to preview. Provide exactly one of html or eml.
rendersNoExactly the renders you want, one entry each (e.g. outlook light + outlook dark are two entries). Omit for the server default: every live client at its default width, light.
subjectNoEmail subject line
include_previewsNoAlso capture the inbox-list row (how the message looks unread in the list) and the subject heading, returned as inbox_preview / subject_preview on each render. Default false: they cost more than the body render itself, so ask only when you need them.
include_full_pageNoAlso screenshot the whole client window around the opened email (the mailbox UI as well as the message), returned as full_page on each render next to the usual email-only screenshot. Default false. Best-effort: the render mailbox identity and any other mail are masked, and the capture is omitted when that cannot be verified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_full_page
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also screenshot the whole client window around the opened email (the mailbox UI as well as the message), returned as full_page on each render next to the usual email-only screenshot. Default false. Best-effort: the render mailbox identity and any other mail are masked, and the capture is omitted when that cannot be verified.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / renders / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous job pattern and the response type (job ID), which is the most relevant behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention side effects of submission, job lifecycle, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 with no wasted words: the core action, input formats, constraint, and async response are all front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, this description gives the essential selection and invocation info (what it does, input constraint, job ID response). It doesn't detail the response schema, but that's delegated to the poll tools, so the gap is minor.

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 only recaps the html/eml mutual exclusion already documented in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a direct verb+resource ('Submit an email for rendering across email clients') and specifies the two accepted input forms (HTML or base64 .eml) plus the exactly-one constraint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings get_job/get_screenshot (which retrieve results) and list_clients (which enumerates client options).

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 description sets clear context: this is the submission entry point, and 'Returns a job ID to poll for results' implies the subsequent get_job/get_screenshot steps. It also states the exactly-one-of-html/eml rule. There are no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool statements, so it misses the top score.

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

All inbox-preview 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