Skip to main content
Glama

Conduit Agentic Commerce

Email a supplier or carrier

agent_outreach
Idempotent

Email outside addresses (suppliers, carriers). to is a string email, { email }, or { emails } (max 5). Not to=all and not a Hub user_id / role — those are agent_notify. Linked agents set Reply-To to an org member (default OWNER). No action buttons. Channel is email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesOutside address(es): a string email, { email }, or { emails } (max 5). Not to=all and not a Hub user_id / role — those are agent_notify.
bodyYesPlain-text body, max 4000 characters. URLs stay escaped text, not buttons.
titleYesSubject line, max 120 characters
channelNoDelivery channel. Email only — omit or pass email
dry_runNoIf true, resolve recipients and from-address without sending or storing
agent_idYesAuthenticated agent sending the note
order_idNoOptional order correlation
reply_toNoLinked only: who receives replies. { email } or { role } matching a member. Omit to default to the OWNER. Unlinked agents have no Reply-To.
search_idNoOptional search correlation
session_tokenNoSession token from agent_authenticate — required whenever agent_id is passed
idempotency_keyNoReplay key — same agent + key returns the original outreach_id without sending again

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNo
hintNo
nextNo
errorNo
detailNo
failedNo
channelNo
dry_runNo
reply_toNo
deliveredNo
recipientsNo
outreach_idNo
idempotent_replayNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral specifics: Reply-To defaults to OWNER for linked agents, no action buttons are sent, and delivery is email-only. These go beyond the annotation hints and clarify side effects.

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 dense but short: purpose first, then recipient constraints, then routing rule, then Reply-To behavior, then channel/action-button clarification. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information and no content is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, full parameter documentation in the schema, and annotations covering mutation/idempotency, the description supplies the remaining contextual essentials: recipient types, sibling-tool routing, Reply-To behavior, and channel constraints. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by clarifying the to variants, the max-5 limit, the exclusion of internal recipients, and the Reply-To default. This helps an agent construct valid calls without inspecting every schema branch.

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 opens with a specific verb and target: 'Email outside addresses (suppliers, carriers).' It immediately distinguishes itself from agent_notify by excluding Hub user_id/role and to=all recipients, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus agent_notify: outside email addresses go here; Hub users, roles, and broadcast 'all' go to agent_notify. This direct sibling differentiation gives an agent a clear routing rule.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to a distinct resource/action, and the descriptions explicitly call out boundaries (e.g., agent_notify targets Hub users while agent_outreach targets external addresses). A few closely related pairs such as supply_delivery/supply_details and order_events/order_track could still cause misselection despite the clarifying notes.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a clear lowercase snake_case resource-prefix pattern across agent_, order_, payment_, and supply_. The pattern is not perfectly uniform because some names are noun-only (agent_organization, payment_methods, supply_details) and order_update_status is a longer compound.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal range, but the count is justified by four distinct subdomains: agent identity/communication, orders, payments, and supply. No obvious filler tools are present.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main commerce workflow well: agent setup/auth, search and delivery probes, order execution/tracking/feedback/disputes, and payment mandates/methods. Minor gaps like no agent deletion, no payment-method disable, and no standalone order-detail tool are workable or arguably out of scope.

Resources