Emailchaser

Update sender email

update_sender_email

Idempotent

Updates a connected sending email account's display name, signature or daily sending limits. Only the provided fields are changed. Warm-up settings are separate and are not changed here. The returned account includes its healthScore (0-100, higher is better; null while warm-up is off or before 20 warm-up emails were checked).

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_sender_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The numeric sender email ID (from list_sender_emails)
`givenName`	No	Sender first name
`signature`	No	Email signature appended to sends from this mailbox
`familyName`	No	Sender last name
`currentDailyLimit`	No	Today's effective daily limit
`toggleGradualBuildUp`	No	Auto ramp-up: raise the daily limit 10 a week until it reaches maximumSendingsLimitPerDay, its target (recommended for new mailboxes)
`maximumSendingsLimitPerDay`	No	Maximum emails this mailbox may send per day
`minimumSendingsLimitPerDay`	No	Minimum emails per day: the low end of the mailbox's daily range

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / minimumSendingsLimitPerDay / description

Previous value: -"Minimum emails per day during gradual build-up"New value: +"Minimum emails per day: the low end of the mailbox's daily range"

changedInput schema / properties / toggleGradualBuildUp / description

Previous value: -"Ramp the daily limit up gradually (recommended for new mailboxes)"New value: +"Auto ramp-up: raise the daily limit 10 a week until it reaches maximumSendingsLimitPerDay, its target (recommended for new mailboxes)"

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

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

First observedSep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it non-read-only, non-destructive and idempotent, and the description usefully adds partial-update semantics plus the fact that warm-up settings are untouched — a real safety boundary. It also discloses return behavior (healthScore 0-100, null while warm-up is off or before 20 warm-up emails checked), which matters given there is no output schema. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of error behavior for an invalid id or any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what changes, followed by the partial-update rule and the warm-up exclusion. The final sentence on healthScore is longer but earns its length because it explains a null-valued return field that no output schema covers.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important surfaces: what mutates, that unspecified fields are preserved, what is out of scope, and the shape of the returned healthScore. It falls just short of complete because the boundary between "daily sending limits" and "warm-up settings" is blurred by the gradual-build-up parameters in the schema.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description adds only a high-level grouping (display name, signature, limits). There is a mild tension worth flagging: the description says warm-up settings are not changed here, yet the schema exposes toggleGradualBuildUp and min/max daily sending limits described as ramp-up controls, leaving the agent to infer whether those count as warm-up. That ambiguity slightly undercuts the otherwise schema-driven baseline of 3.

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 ("Updates a connected sending email account") plus the exact field families it touches: display name, signature, daily sending limits. It also carves out scope against the sibling warm-up updater ("Warm-up settings are separate and are not changed here"), so an agent can distinguish it from update_sender_email_warmup 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear operating context: it is a partial update ("Only the provided fields are changed") and it explicitly excludes warm-up configuration, which routes the agent toward the warm-up sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating prerequisites (e.g., that the account must be connected or that the id comes from list_sender_emails, which is only in the schema).

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

All Emailchaser 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.

Resources

Need Help?