Skip to main content
Glama

Faivelo Email

by com.faivelo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send one email to many recipients

send_batch
Destructive

Send the same email to many recipients in ONE call. Use this instead of calling send_message in a loop whenever two or more people get a similar message (an announcement, invitations, a follow-up with each person's name). Write {{field}} in the subject, text or html and give each recipient its fields, e.g. {{first_name}}; a field a recipient lacks renders empty. Faivelo queues the batch, sends it at the plan's pace and tracks every recipient; the reply comes back at once with a batch id and each recipient as "queued" (poll get_batch_status for sent, delivered, bounced). Every recipient counts against the monthly send allowance like a single send. The whole batch is accepted or refused: over the plan's per-call cap or the remaining allowance, nothing is queued and the error says the cap (usage shows it as batch.recipientsPerCall). idempotencyKey is required and makes a retry safe: the same key returns the original batch instead of sending again.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromYesThe sending mailbox, "updates@yourdomain.com" or "Acme Updates <updates@yourdomain.com>"
htmlNoHTML body; may contain {{field}} tokens (values are HTML-escaped)
textNoPlain-text body; may contain {{field}} tokens
labelsNoFree-form tags kept on the batch and echoed in its status and webhook events
replyToNoReply-To address, when replies should go somewhere other than the sending mailbox
subjectYesSubject line; may contain {{field}} tokens
fromNameNoFrom name for this batch only; overrides a name in from and the mailbox's own name
recipientsYesOne entry per recipient. Duplicate addresses are sent once.
idempotencyKeyYesRequired. A value unique to this batch (e.g. "launch-notice-2026-10"); repeating it returns the original batch instead of sending again

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / from / description
      Previous value: -"Full address of the sending mailbox, e.g. \"updates@yourdomain.com\""New value: +"The sending mailbox, \"updates@yourdomain.com\" or \"Acme Updates <updates@yourdomain.com>\""
    • addedInput schema / properties / fromName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "From name for this batch only; overrides a name in from and the mailbox's own name",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag it as a write with open-world/destructive characteristics; the description adds substantial behavior: asynchronous queueing at the plan's pace, immediate 'queued' reply plus get_batch_status polling for delivered/bounced, monthly-allowance accounting, all-or-nothing batch acceptance with a per-call cap error (batch.recipientsPerCall), and idempotencyKey making retries safe. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 routing decision and the sibling comparison, then layers token mechanics, async behavior, and caps in descending priority. Dense and long (several run-on clauses), but essentially every sentence carries distinct operational information; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return contract itself: immediate batch id, per-recipient 'queued' status, and the get_batch_status follow-up for terminal states. Combined with the cap/error semantics and idempotency behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up on this 9-param tool.

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, and the description still adds real meaning beyond it: how {{field}} tokens flow from subject/text/html to each recipient's fields, that a missing field renders empty (not an error), and that idempotencyKey's repeat returns the original batch. It doesn't cover from/fromName/replyTo precedence depth, but the token and idempotency semantics are genuinely additive.

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+scope ('Send the same email to many recipients in ONE call') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling send_message by contrasting the loop pattern. An agent can route between send_batch and send_message 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('whenever two or more people get a similar message') and names the alternative it replaces ('instead of calling send_message in a loop'), with concrete examples (announcement, invitations, follow-up). The only missing piece is when-not, but the trigger condition is stated positively and precisely.

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

All Faivelo Email toolsInspect
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