Skip to main content
Glama

DirectMailAmerica — Full

Approve Email Letter

approve_email_letter
Destructive

Approve printing and mailing of an owned preview using id, exact version, exact cents and confirmMail=true. Obtain explicit human approval of the PDF, addresses, total and Terms of Use first. Requires production key and prepaid credits; atomic budgets and duplicate protection apply. This can buy postage. Uncertain responses must be reconciled, never blindly retried.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "version": "<version>",
      "cents": "<cents>",
      "confirmMail": "<confirmMail>"
    },
    "name": "approve_email_letter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
centsYes
versionYes
confirmMailYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
errorNo
messageNo
operationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "description": "Read operation first for financial/mail state and recovery. Optional service fields are absent on failure. Unknown is not zero or permission to retry. Legacy service fields remain available.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "body": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "error": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "message": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "additionalProperties": true,
      +          "properties": {
      +            "id": {
      +              "type": "string"
      +            },
      +            "jobId": {
      +              "type": "string"
      +            },
      +            "priceCents": {
      +              "type": "integer"
      +            },
      +            "state": {
      +              "type": "string"
      +            },
      +            "version": {
      +              "type": "integer"
      +            }
      +          },
      +          "type": "object"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "operation": {
      +      "additionalProperties": false,
      +      "properties": {
      +        "amountCents": {
      +          "description": "USD cents. Null means not applicable or not known; never interpret null as zero.",
      +          "type": [
      +            "integer",
      +            "null"
      +          ]
      +        },
      +        "code": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "currency": {
      +          "const": "USD"
      +        },
      +        "expiresAt": {
      +          "type": [
      +            "string",
      +            "null"
      +          ]
      +        },
      +        "fundsState": {
      +          "enum": [
      +            "none",
      +            "reserved",
      +            "debited",
      +            "captured",
      +            "credited",
      +            "refunded",
      +            "unknown",
      +            "simulated"
      +          ]
      +        },
      +        "mailingState": {
      +          "enum": [
      +            "none",
      +            "submitted",
      +            "pending",
      +            "unknown",
      +            "simulated"
      +          ]
      +        },
      +        "receiptId": {
      +          "type": [
      +            "string",
      +            "null"
      +          ]
      +        },
      +        "recovery": {
      +          "additionalProperties": false,
      +          "properties": {
      +            "action": {
      +              "enum": [
      +                "none",
      +                "retry_same_request",
      +                "check_existing_job",
      +                "fresh_approval",
      +                "requires_user_action"
      +              ]
      +            },
      +            "instructions": {
      +              "type": "string"
      +            },
      +            "nextTool": {
      +              "type": [
      +                "string",
      +                "null"
      +              ]
      +            },
      +            "safeToRetry": {
      +              "type": "boolean"
      +            }
      +          },
      +          "required": [
      +            "action",
      +            "safeToRetry",
      +            "nextTool",
      +            "instructions"
      +          ],
      +          "type": "object"
      +        },
      +        "requestId": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "status": {
      +          "enum": [
      +            "succeeded",
      +            "failed",
      +            "pending",
      +            "needs_review"
      +          ]
      +        },
      +        "tool": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "requestId",
      +        "tool",
      +        "status",
      +        "code",
      +        "amountCents",
      +        "currency",
      +        "expiresAt",
      +        "receiptId",
      +        "fundsState",
      +        "mailingState",
      +        "recovery"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "operation"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/non-idempotent annotations by disclosing that it spends money (buys postage, requires prepaid credits), that atomic budgets and duplicate protection are in play, and that ambiguous outcomes require reconciliation rather than retries. This is exactly the financial and safety context an agent needs for an irreversible mail operation.

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?

Front-loads the action, then layers prerequisites, constraints, and a retry warning, with every clause carrying actionable information and no wasted prose.

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 financially consequential, irreversible mailing operation the description covers prerequisites, credits/key requirements, duplicate protection, and reconciliation. With an output schema present, return-value explanation is rightly omitted, so nothing essential 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden and names all four parameters, stressing 'exact version' and 'exact cents' plus confirmMail=true. The word 'exact' adds concurrency/safety meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the id format or why precision matters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (approve) and resource (printing and mailing of an owned preview), which clearly separates it from preview_email_letter, prepare_email_letter and reject_email_letter. It does not explicitly name the alternatives it differs from, so it falls just short of a clean sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete prerequisite (obtain explicit human approval of PDF, addresses, total and Terms of Use first) and a reconciliation rule (uncertain responses must be reconciled, never blindly retried). It stops short of naming alternative actions like reject_email_letter or how to handle an already-approved preview, but the when-to-use and when-to-be-careful guidance is strong.

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.

Resources