Send an outreach email to a recruiter or referrer for a job application. The email will be sent from your configured email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Email body content | |
| slot | No | The slot returned by the contact tools; pass it through so the outreach is recorded correctly | |
| subject | Yes | Email subject line | |
| contactId | Yes | The contact ID (from get_application_recruiters or get_application_referrers) | |
| applicationId | Yes | The job application ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slotAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The slot returned by the contact tools; pass it through so the outreach is recorded correctly",
+ "enum": [
+ "recruiter",
+ "hiring_manager",
+ "referral"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. The statement, 'The email will be sent from your configured email,' provides useful operational context regarding the sender's origin/authentication, earning it a minimal positive score above baseline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is highly efficient, using two concise sentences to cover both the action and a key behavioral characteristic (sender identity). There is zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the detailed input schema, the definition is functionally complete for initiating the request. It clearly outlines the required inputs for a successful action, although it lacks behavioral guarantees (e.g., delivery rate or failure states).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% description coverage, setting the baseline at 3. The description contributes marginally by explaining the overall goal (reaching out to specific job contact types), but it does not add unique or specialized semantic meaning to any individual parameters beyond what is already detailed in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Send'), identifies the resource (outreach email), and clearly defines the target audience (recruiter or referrer for a job application). This distinguishes it effectively from sibling tools like 'apply_to_job' or 'get_job_recruiters'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description describes what the tool does, but not when to use it. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, such as which contact data must be obtained first, nor does it mention alternative approaches or limits, leading to minimal actionable usage advice for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.