send_emailSend a plain-text email from Move Studios to a client (by client_id) or any address. Replies go to the logged-in staff member unless reply_to is set. [requires scope: email]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Email address (used when client_id not given) | |
| body | Yes | Plain text; blank lines separate paragraphs | |
| bcc_me | No | BCC the sender | |
| subject | Yes | ||
| reply_to | No | ||
| client_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a non-read-only, destructive side-effect operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: replies default to the logged-in staff member unless reply_to is set, the email is plain-text, and the scope requirement is disclosed. It does not detail irreversibility or potential charges, but the main behavioral traits are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences plus a scope note convey all essential information. There is no filler, and the most important behavior is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers recipient resolution, reply behavior, plain-text format, and scope requirements, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of any mention of return values or failure modes, but there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, so the description partially compensates by explaining that client_id and to are alternative recipient routes and that reply_to changes the default reply behavior. Subject is left undescribed, though its purpose is self-evident. Overall, the description adds meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb and resource: it sends a plain-text email from Move Studios to a client or any address. It also distinguishes itself from sibling communication tools like send_sms by specifying the email medium and recipient options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when emailing a client by client_id or an arbitrary address. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like send_sms, but the context is strong enough that an agent can select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and the descriptions carefully separate operations like attendance_report, list_classes, and get_class_roster. A few reads overlap conceptually (get_client, get_reservation_history, get_credit_history, get_client_notes all return client-related data), but each has a specific output that an agent can distinguish with reasonable effort.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a consistent action_object pattern: add_client_note, cancel_class, freeze_membership, refund_order, set_client_tag, unfreeze_membership. The get_/list_ prefix distinction is used predictably, and auth tools (login, logout, whoami) are standard exceptions rather than inconsistent naming.
41 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool set. Although each tool appears to serve a real studio-operations need, the sheer number creates a large surface for an agent to navigate and places significant burden on selection accuracy.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle well across clients, classes, memberships, orders, payments, and communications, with no obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_client profile tool and no class-scheduling creation, but staff workflows can generally be completed.