Nas.com MCP

Create Magic Reach Message

create_magic_reach_message

Create a draft Magic Reach message for a managed community. Supports Lexical email editor content via emailLexicalContent, or emailBodyText which MCP converts to content.root. Before offering this action or requesting its inputs, check business permissions. FREE businesses cannot use this tool, regardless of individual feature rows. Call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs. Show any grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link before continuing, and never proceed when access is blocked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No
`author`	No
`isDemo`	No
`content`	No	Raw Magic Reach editor content. For Lexical, pass { root: ... }.
`isDraft`	No
`bucketMetas`	No
`communityId`	Yes
`templateIds`	No
`emailSubject`	No	Email subject alias for title. MCP forwards this to LPBE as title.
`bucketFilters`	No
`emailBodyText`	No	Plain email body text. MCP converts paragraphs into Lexical content.root for Magic Reach.
`selectedUsers`	No
`sentPlatforms`	No
`visibilityType`	No
`selectedBuckets`	No
`unselectedUsers`	No
`templateObjectId`	No
`emailLexicalContent`	No	Lexical editor content for the Magic Reach email. Pass either { root: ... } or the raw Lexical root node.
`selectedMembershipTiers`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing important behaviors: FREE business restriction, the grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link requirement, and the MCP conversion of emailBodyText to content.root. This is valuable context for safe invocation.

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 core purpose, followed by important guardrails and content-mode guidance. Every sentence delivers useful information without redundancy.

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 description thoroughly covers the access-check workflow and the two content formats, but it leaves most of the 19 parameters undocumented and does not explain output or return behavior (though no output schema exists). It is sufficient for avoiding the biggest pitfalls but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The description explains the choice between emailLexicalContent and emailBodyText, but the schema already contains descriptions for both. With 19 parameters and only 21% schema coverage, many fields (e.g., content, bucketMetas, templateIds, bucketFilters, selectedUsers) remain unexplained by either the schema or the description.

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 'Create a draft Magic Reach message for a managed community,' which uses a specific verb and resource. The word 'draft' distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_magic_reach_message and schedule_magic_reach_message.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: check business permissions, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, and never proceed when access is blocked. It also notes that FREE businesses cannot use the tool, which is a clear exclusionary condition.

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

All Nas.com MCP tools Inspect

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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are semantically identical, distinguished only by 'business' vs 'community' prefixes, and descriptions explicitly state they are interchangeable. This creates ambiguity for agent selection. Examples include add_business_admins/add_community_admins and get_business/get_community.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but the inconsistent use of 'business' vs 'community' for the same entities breaks the pattern. While individual naming is clear, the overall set lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 423 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. The high count is driven by redundant 'business' and 'community' variants and many niche operations. A more focused surface would be far more manageable.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a broad range of features including CRUD operations for multiple product types, analytics, payments, messaging, and integrations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for some entity types), but overall domain coverage is strong.

Resources

Need Help?