Tulina

apollo_act

Destructive

⚠️ ACTS at Apollo, in the key owner's name: send_email sends a one-off email prepared by apollo_email(op="draft") — IRREVERSIBLE, it reaches a real person. Preparing, following and reading emails is apollo_email.

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": {
      "op": "<op>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "apollo_act"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`op`	Yes	"send_email".
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`dry_run`	No	True validates the call and sends nothing.
`surface`	No	optional sending surface.
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`message_id`	Yes	the draft's id (from `apollo_email(op="draft")`'s response).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds meaningful context: the send happens 'in the key owner's name' (sender identity/authorization) and the effect is IRREVERSIBLE against a real person. It stops short of covering failure modes, quota/rate limits, or what happens on invalid message_id, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences with the warning sign and the destructive consequence front-loaded, followed by the sibling routing rule. Nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema, and there is no filler.

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 9-parameter, output-schema-less mutation tool, the description covers the essential decision inputs: what it does, that it is irreversible, sender identity, and where the draft originates. The _org/_run_id/surface mechanics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but means an agent must read the schema for required scoping context.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents op, message_id, dry_run, surface and the _org/_project/_run_id scoping fields. The description only reinforces message_id's provenance ('from apollo_email(op="draft")'s response'), which is already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('send_email sends a one-off email'), and explicitly bounds the tool to that single operation while naming apollo_email as the tool for preparing, following and reading emails. An agent can distinguish this from the large apollo_* sibling set without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives both when-to-use (sending an already-drafted email) and when-not (drafting, following or reading → apollo_email), plus the explicit prerequisite that the message must be prepared by apollo_email(op="draft"). No ambiguity about routing.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

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

Need Help?