Admin Substitute

comms.send_email

Send an email on behalf of the company. Subject to monthly email quota. HTML body supported.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient email address. Required.
`body`	Yes	Email body in HTML format. Required.
`jobId`	No	Optional job ID to link this email to.
`leadId`	No	Optional lead ID to link this email to.
`subject`	Yes	Email subject line. Required.
`messageType`	No	Type of email for logging/analytics. Defaults to "manual".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error message if send failed
`success`	No	Whether the email was sent successfully
`messageId`	No	Email message ID for tracking

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedMay 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses monthly email quota and HTML support, adding value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false indicates mutation). Does not describe success/failure, rate limits, or 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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers core action, quota, HTML support. No mention of sending behavior (immediate/scheduled) or response but output schema exists. Minor gaps but largely sufficient.

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% (all 6 parameters described). Description adds only 'HTML body supported' which relates to body param but doesn't significantly augment schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Send an email on behalf of the company.' Distinct from sibling comms.send_sms. Constraints (quota, HTML support) add clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies use for official company emails but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. No mention of alternatives like comms.send_sms.

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

All Admin Substitute tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Most tools have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.

Tool Count1/5

95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.

Resources

Need Help?