Multi Mail

Forward a message

messages_forward

DestructiveIdempotent

Forward one message to the addresses you name, with the files it carries, inside the thread it already sits in. Only the provider's own limit applies to what it carries. Call this only when the person asked for this message to go; when they asked to prepare one, draft it instead. A request id already spent sends nothing again: the answer says whether that send went or may have gone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Who the forward is addressed to.
`html`	No	Your own words as HTML, for formatting; note stays their plain-text version. An Outlook mailbox keeps only the HTML and writes the plain version from it.
`note`	No	Your own words, above the message forwarded.
`mailbox`	Yes	The mailbox's name or its email address.
`messageId`	Yes	The provider's own identifier.
`requestId`	Yes	Your own id for this send, new for every message. One whose send went or may have gone sends nothing again.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`accepted`	No
`threadId`	Yes
`messageId`	No
`sentCopyKept`	No
`refusedRecipients`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / sentCopyKept
```
Added value: +{
+  "const": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / refusedRecipients
```
Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
```

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / to / items / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

removedOutput schema / properties / id / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / id / type

Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / threadId / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / threadId / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description earns credit for adding replay semantics ('a request id already spent sends nothing again') and the provider-limit note on payload, though it does not spell out why the operation is destructive (e.g. irreversible send, no recall).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries decision-relevant information (recipients, thread, size limit, send-vs-draft, idempotency). 'Only the provider's own limit applies to what it carries' is slightly opaque phrasing, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, yet the description still tells the agent the answer distinguishes a send that went from one that may have gone. Combined with the draft-vs-send routing and idempotency note, an agent has what it needs; only the destructive/irreversibility angle is left implicit.

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%, so the schema documents every parameter (to, html, note, mailbox, messageId, requestId) on its own; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the requestId replay rule and the attachment behavior but adds no format or syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource (forward one message), and three concrete scoping facts: recipients are the named addresses, existing attachments ride along, and it stays in its current thread. It also distinguishes itself from the draft path, so an agent can separate it from drafts_forward without opening either 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 an explicit routing rule: 'Call this only when the person asked for this message to go; when they asked to prepare one, draft it instead.' That is a clear when-to-use plus a when-not-to-use with the alternative behavior named, which is exactly what the sibling list (drafts_forward) requires.

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

All Multi Mail 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.