Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Send Email

send_email
Destructive

Use this when the user wants to send an email from an account configured in the Mac's Apple Mail. Composes and sends via Mail.app; supports plain text or HTML body. For sending from a Microsoft 365 account NOT added to Mail.app, use m365_send_email. Pass from to send from a specific configured Mail.app account instead of the default sender. Pass attachments as a comma-separated list of absolute file paths to attach files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC address(es), comma-separated.
toYesRecipient address(es), comma-separated for multiple.
bccNoBCC address(es), comma-separated.
bodyNoPlain-text body. Use this OR html_body; if both are given, html_body wins.
fromNoSender address — on a multi-account Mac, selects which configured Mail.app account sends. Omit to use Mail's default account.
confirmNoSafety gate: the call only PREVIEWS (nothing is sent) unless confirm:true. Set true to actually send.false
subjectYesSubject line.
html_bodyNoHTML body. Takes precedence over `body` when both are set.
attachmentsNoFiles to attach, as comma-separated absolute paths (e.g. a PDF).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
sentNo
subjectNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it composes and sends via Mail.app, supports plain text or HTML, and allows selecting a specific sender account. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context about the sending mechanism.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, and every sentence provides necessary detail without fluff. It efficiently covers scope, alternatives, and key parameter usage.

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 a send tool with a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description clearly explains what it does, when to use it, and how to use key optional parameters. It does not mention the `confirm` safety gate, but that is thoroughly described in the schema, so the overall context is complete.

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% with each parameter well-described. The description adds a bit of extra context for `from` (specific account vs default) and `attachments` (absolute paths), but the schema already covers these well, so the added value is marginal.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('send an email') and the resource (via Apple Mail/Mail.app), and explicitly distinguishes this from m365_send_email. It also covers the key capabilities (plain text/HTML) and scope (configured Mail.app accounts).

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?

It opens with 'Use this when...' and explicitly names the alternative for M365 accounts not in Mail.app. Instructions for using `from` and `attachments` provide concrete usage context, making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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

All local-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources