Skip to main content
Glama

Update sender email warm-up

update_sender_email_warmup
Idempotent

Switches warm-up on or off and changes the warm-up ramp for up to 100 mailboxes in one call, applying the same settings to each. Only the settings provided change. Warm-up sends startLimit emails on the first day and adds increaseBy each sending day until it reaches capLimit a day; this is separate from campaign sending limits. A mailbox that has never warmed needs enabled: true to take any other setting, and is then enrolled with the defaults (2 a day, 2 more each day, up to 10 a day, weekdays only, UTC) plus the settings given. Raising capLimit on a mailbox that is already warming lifts today's target without restarting its ramp. Each mailbox succeeds or fails on its own: the result lists the updated mailboxes' settings, each with its healthScore (see get_sender_email_warmup), under updated, and any failures with the reason under failed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesSender email IDs to update (from list_sender_emails)
enabledNotrue switches warm-up on, false switches it off
capLimitNoMost warm-up emails per day; the ramp stops here
timezoneNoIANA timezone for the warm-up send window, e.g. America/New_York
increaseByNoWarm-up emails added each sending day until the cap
startLimitNoWarm-up emails on the first day
weekdaysOnlyNoSend warm-up emails Monday to Friday only
enableRepliesNoLet warm-up recipients reply, adding reply signals

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover safety (idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: ramp mechanics (startLimit on day one, +increaseBy per sending day to capLimit), enrollment defaults for new mailboxes, the fact that raising capLimit lifts today's target without restarting the ramp, and per-mailbox independent success/failure semantics.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the opening sentence states what the tool does before the mechanics. Every sentence carries operational information, though the description is long enough that some ramp detail could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema and 8 parameters, the description carries the load well: it describes the response shape (updated entries with settings and healthScore, failures with reason) and covers the ramp/enrollment edge cases an agent must know to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how startLimit, increaseBy and capLimit interact in the ramp, and by stating that other settings are inert until enabled: true. This adds meaning the per-field schema text alone does not convey.

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+resource (switch warm-up on/off, change ramp) and scopes it to up to 100 mailboxes in one call. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling update_sender_email, which handles general sender settings.

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 strong context: partial-update semantics ('only the settings provided change'), the prerequisite that a never-warmed mailbox needs enabled: true, and the pointer to get_sender_email_warmup for healthScore. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to use this versus update_sender_email, so it is not a 5.

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