GhosterMail

Send e-mail

send_message

Sends an e-mail from a GhosterMail mailbox. Optionally schedules it for later delivery.

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	Optional CC addresses.
`to`	Yes	Recipient addresses.
`bcc`	No	Optional BCC addresses.
`body`	Yes	Message body. Plain text by default; set 'isHtml' to true for HTML.
`isHtml`	No	Whether 'body' is HTML. Default: false.
`sendAt`	No	Optional delivery time (ISO 8601 with time zone, e.g. 2026-11-01T09:00:00Z), up to 65 days ahead.
`subject`	No	Subject.
`accountId`	Yes	Id of the sender mailbox (see 'list_accounts').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare that this is a write operation, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description reinforces sending and adds that delivery can be scheduled, but it does not elaborate on irreversibility, whether scheduled sends can be canceled, rate limits, or authentication 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?

The definition is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional scheduling capability. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 tool with fully documented schema and rich annotations, the description is sufficient to select and invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain what a successful send returns, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including sendAt's ISO 8601 format and 65-day limit. The description only echoes the mailbox source and optional scheduling without adding parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

It uses a specific verb ('Sends') and resource ('e-mail') and scopes the operation to a GhosterMail mailbox. The sibling tools are account/message management tools, so there is no ambiguity about which tool sends mail.

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 description implies use for sending mail and notes optional later delivery, but it does not state when to use immediate vs scheduled sending, prerequisites such as selecting a mailbox via list_accounts, or any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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

All GhosterMail tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?