Nas.com

Update Business Mail

update_community_mail

Update community mail content and subject. Business and community refer to the same thing and are interchangeable. 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.

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": {
      "communityId": "<communityId>",
      "mailType": "<mailType>",
      "content": "<content>",
      "mailSubject": "<mailSubject>"
    },
    "name": "update_community_mail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	Email body content.
`mailType`	Yes	Email template type to read or update.
`isEnabled`	No
`communityId`	Yes	Nas.com business (community) ID. Use an ID returned by list_businesses or another Nas.com tool; never invent one.
`mailSubject`	Yes	Email subject line.
`mailCourseOffer`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / communityId / description

Added value: +"Nas.com business (community) ID. Use an ID returned by list_businesses or another Nas.com tool; never invent one."

addedInput schema / properties / content / description
```
Added value: +"Email body content."
```
addedInput schema / properties / mailSubject / description
```
Added value: +"Email subject line."
```

addedInput schema / properties / mailType / description

Added value: +"Email template type to read or update."

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: FREE businesses are blocked regardless of feature rows, and blocked access must halt the call. However, it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to fields not supplied (isEnabled, mailCourseOffer), or the effect on an already-scheduled mail.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the business/community equivalence is placed early where it prevents confusion. The access-check instruction is stated twice ('Before offering this action... check business permissions' and 'Call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs'), which is redundant but not misleading.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a nested free-form 'content' object, the access-gating story is thorough but the payload story is not. An agent still lacks guidance on the structure of content and on the semantics of optional parameters before calling.

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 67% and the schema itself documents communityId, mailType, mailSubject, and content, so the baseline applies. The description only confirms that content and subject are the updatable payload and says nothing about communityId sourcing, isEnabled, or mailCourseOffer, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update community mail content and subject.' The added note that business and community are interchangeable meaningfully distinguishes the naming from the parallel update_business_mail sibling. It stops short of naming the read/send/validate mail siblings it is not, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: check business permissions before offering the action, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings and the resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. What is missing is guidance about when to choose this versus update_business_mail or the send/validate mail tools.

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

All Nas.com 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.