Skip to main content
Glama

Set a mailbox signature

argorant_set_inbox_signature
Destructive

Set the signature of one mailbox, or remove it with clear=true so the mailbox uses the workspace default. Use it for one mailbox; for many use argorant_set_inbox_signatures and for the default argorant_set_default_signature. Only the fields you pass change. A signature only appears where an email or reply contains {{signature}}, in the first email and follow-ups alike; without it nothing is added, except that replies from an agent sign on their own. Inside a signature the older {{first_name}}, {{last_name}}, {{title}} and {{company}} still mean the sender. title, company, first_name and last_name set this mailbox's own values for the sender variables. Links need format html with simple HTML such as Book a call. replies_only is no longer used. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#analytics-mailbox-settings-blocklist

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_set_inbox_signature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clearNotrue removes this mailbox's own signature
emailYesThe mailbox address.
titleNoA job title to use for {{sender_title}}.
formatNotext (default) or html
companyNoA company name to use for {{sender_company}}.
templateNoThe signature, fixed text with the variables {{sender_first_name}}, {{sender_last_name}}, {{sender_full_name}}, {{sender_title}}, {{sender_company}} and {{sender_email}}, for example "Best,\n{{sender_first_name}} {{sender_last_name}}\n{{sender_title}}, {{sender_company}}". No {a|b} variations.
last_nameNoA last name to try in place of the mailbox's own.
first_nameNoA first name to try in place of the mailbox's own.
replies_onlyNoNo longer used. Still accepted so older clients keep working, but it changes nothing.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds substantial context beyond that: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), the fact that a signature only renders where {{signature}} appears, that agent replies self-sign, and that replies_only is a deprecated no-op. It does not spell out permission requirements or reversibility, which keeps it from 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the sibling routing, which is the right ordering. The middle section is dense and runs several clauses together (variable aliasing, placeholder behavior, HTML links, deprecation), so it is slightly harder to scan than it could be, but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the behaviors an agent cannot infer: partial updates, placeholder-dependent rendering, variable aliasing, HTML link formatting, and the deprecated parameter. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains that title/company/first_name/last_name populate this mailbox's own sender variables, that legacy {{first_name}}/{{last_name}}/{{title}}/{{company}} still resolve to the sender, and that links require format=html with simple markup. The only gap is that it does not restate the email parameter's role, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Set the signature of one mailbox') plus the removal path via clear=true, and explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not (argorant_set_inbox_signatures for many, argorant_set_default_signature for the default). An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for one mailbox, use argorant_set_inbox_signatures for many, use argorant_set_default_signature for the workspace default. It also states the clear=true condition for removal, so both the when and the when-not are covered.

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.