Skip to main content
Glama

mb-mastering

by com.mathieuberthet

prepare_quote_email

RÉSERVÉ AU STUDIO (token d'administration requis). Prépare un brouillon — ou envoie — l'email d'un devis ou d'une facture PDF à un client, depuis contact@mathieuberthet.com. Par défaut (mode « draft »), l'email est déposé dans les Brouillons du webmail OVH pour relecture avant envoi ; en mode « send », il est envoyé immédiatement puis archivé dans Envoyés. Le PDF (généré par Indy) est fourni encodé en base64.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoAdresses en copie (string CSV ou array).
modeNodraft (défaut) : brouillon dans le webmail OVH. send : envoi immédiat.
subjectNoSujet de l'email. Défaut : « MB Mastering — Devis/Facture n° … ».
auth_tokenNoToken d'administration (si le client MCP ne permet pas le header Authorization).
pdf_base64YesContenu du PDF du document, encodé en base64.
referencesNoChaîne References (Message-IDs séparés par espaces). Auto = in_reply_to si absent.
client_nameNoNom du client (salutation et en-tête To).
in_reply_toNoMessage-ID du mail auquel on répond (avec ou sans chevrons), pour threading IMAP/Gmail.
body_messageNoParagraphe personnalisé inséré dans le corps par défaut.
client_emailYesAdresse email du client destinataire.
pdf_filenameNoNom du fichier joint. Défaut : Devis-<n>.pdf / Facture-<n>.pdf.
document_typeYesType de document joint.
document_numberYesNuméro du document, ex. 202608-2.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: requires admin token, can draft (places in OVH webmail Drafts) or send (immediate send and archive in Sent), uses contact@mathieuberthet.com as sender, and receives base64 PDF generated by Indy. This adds substantial context beyond the schema, though it omits details like rate limits or failure modes.

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 concise and front-loaded with the critical admin-token restriction, then clearly explains the main action and modes. Each sentence adds value (purpose, draft/send behavior, PDF source), making it well-structured and economical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations, but the description covers the main workflow and key constraints. However, it does not describe the return value or post-invocation result, and it leaves out edge cases like error handling or token acquisition, so it is not fully complete for a complex tool.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds some extra context, such as the PDF being generated by Indy and the mode semantics, but it does not significantly extend parameter understanding beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: preparing or sending an email for a quote or invoice PDF to a client, with specific actions (draft vs send). It is specific about the resource (email from contact@mathieuberthet.com) and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_quote_request, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides clear usage context, including that admin token is required and the tool is reserved for the studio, and explains the draft vs send modes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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

All mb-mastering 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: search/fetch for content, get_* for info categories, and quote-related tools for requests/admin. Minor overlap exists between get_pricing and get_services, which both mention tariffs, but they are otherwise clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_faq, get_pricing, send_quote_request, prepare_quote_email), but 'fetch' and 'search' are bare verbs that deviate from the get_* style. All names are lowercase snake_case, so consistency is mostly preserved.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a studio information and quote integration. Each tool adds value without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range.

Completeness5/5

The server covers all core needs: searching and retrieving content, accessing service/pricing/FAQ/studio info, requesting quotes, and preparing admin emails. No major dead ends or missing operations for the apparent domain.

Resources