Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Faivelo Email

by com.faivelo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send an email

send_message
Destructive

Send an email from one of the account's mailboxes. Counts against the plan's monthly send limit. With sendAt the message is not sent now: it waits in the mailbox's Drafts folder and goes out at that time.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC address(es), comma-separated
toYesRecipient address(es), comma-separated
bccNoBCC address(es), comma-separated
fromYesThe sending mailbox, "bot@yourdomain.com" or "Support Bot <bot@yourdomain.com>". A name here is the From name for this message only.
htmlNoHTML body
textNoPlain-text body
sendAtNoSend later instead of now: an ISO 8601 date and time WITH a timezone, e.g. "2026-10-05T09:00:00Z" or "2026-10-05T09:00:00-04:00". At least one minute and at most 30 days ahead.
subjectYes
fromNameNoFrom name for this message only; overrides a name in from and the mailbox's own name
inReplyToNoMessage-ID being replied to (for threading)
attachmentsNoUp to 5 attachments, 5 MB total decoded

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. \"support-bot@yourdomain.com\""New value: +"The sending mailbox, \"bot@yourdomain.com\" or \"Support Bot <bot@yourdomain.com>\". A name here is the From name for this message only."
    • addedInput schema / properties / fromName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "From name for this message only; overrides a name in from and the mailbox's own name",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the message counts against a monthly plan quota, and with sendAt it sits in Drafts rather than being sent immediately. It still does not say what a successful call returns or how quota exhaustion surfaces.

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 with the core action first, then quota, then the scheduling exception. No filler, no repetition of name or title.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential non-schema behavior (quota impact, delayed-send mechanics) that annotations do not. The main remaining gap is the absence of any statement about the response or failure modes, though the rich schema carries most of the load.

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 91%, so the schema already documents from/to/cc/bcc/html/text/sendAt/attachments precisely. The description reinforces sendAt's scheduling semantics with the Drafts-folder detail, which the schema lacks, but says nothing about threading (inReplyTo) or the 5-attachment/5 MB cap.

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+resource ('Send an email from one of the account's mailboxes') and scopes the sending identity to a mailbox. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings send_draft or send_batch, which an agent must choose between.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The sendAt sentence implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool for immediate vs. scheduled delivery, and the send-limit note flags a constraint. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over send_draft (for an existing draft) or send_batch (multiple messages), which is the primary routing decision.

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