mekktup — online mektup yazma ve gönderme

Mektup taslağı oluştur

create_letter

Taslağı oluşturur. Yanıt: id, token (sakla), handoff_url (kullanıcıya ver), missing (eksik alanlar), quote. Bilmediğin alanı boş bırak; kullanıcı devir sayfasında tamamlar.

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_letter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	mektup metni (en az 20 karakter)
`font`	No	/options → font kodu; boş = varsayılan
`agent`	No	ajan adı (ör. ChatGPT)
`scent`	No
`category`	No
`postcard`	No	kartpostal kategorisi kodu; görseli kullanıcı seçer
`ink_color`	No
`paper_color`	No
`sender_city`	No
`sender_name`	No
`sender_email`	No
`sender_phone`	No
`recipient_ref`	No	hükümlü / sicil no (isteğe bağlı)
`envelope_color`	No
`recipient_city`	No
`recipient_name`	No
`recipient_unit`	No	koğuş, bölük, servis…
`sender_address`	No
`sender_district`	No
`recipient_address`	No
`recipient_district`	No
`sender_national_id`	No	T.C. kimlik no; uydurma, boş bırak
`sender_postal_code`	No
`recipient_father_name`	No	cezaevi: zorunlu
`recipient_institution`	No	cezaevi / birlik / kurum adı
`recipient_postal_code`	No
`recipient_destination_id`	No	katalog kaydı (/destinations); cezaevi için zorunlu

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no output schema, the description is the sole source of return-value information and it delivers: id, token (with the instruction to store it), handoff_url (to be given to the user), missing fields, and quote. It also discloses that partial drafts are acceptable and that completion happens on a handoff page. It stops short of stating persistence lifetime, token sensitivity beyond "sakla", or what a later update_letter call requires.

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?

Three tight sentences with the response contract front-loaded and actionable instructions (store token, hand off URL, leave blanks) immediately after. Dense and largely waste-free, though the telegraphic style leans on the reader decoding shorthand.

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 27-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two hardest things: what comes back and how to handle missing data. Gaps remain around the destination-catalog requirement for prison letters and draft lifecycle, but the critical call-shaping information is present.

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?

Coverage is only 37% across 27 parameters, and the description compensates only partially by establishing the key semantic — omit unknown fields rather than guessing, because the user finishes them on the handoff page. Many visual and sender fields (scent, ink_color, paper_color, envelope_color, sender_city, etc.) get no meaning from either the schema or the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Taslağı oluşturur" states a creation action, but the resource is only an anaphoric "taslak" — the word "mektup" (letter) appears only in the tool name and title, not in the description. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_letter or quote_letter, so an agent must infer that this is the initial draft-creation entry point.

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 instruction "Bilmediğin alanı boş bırak; kullanıcı devir sayfasında tamamlar" gives real guidance on how to call it with incomplete data and what happens next. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over update_letter (draft already exists) or quote_letter (pricing), and no stated prerequisites.

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

All mekktup — online mektup yazma ve gönderme tools Inspect

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

Need Help?