Oviond

Send automation test email

test_automation

Destructive

Send a test email for an automation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Automation ID (from list_automations)
`recipients`	No	Test recipient email addresses. When omitted, the automation's stored recipients are used.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	Confirmation that the test email was sent, and who it went to. A test does not change the schedule or count as a run.
`success`	Yes	True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Confirmation that the test email was sent, and who it went to. A test does not change the schedule or count as a run."
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description only says 'send a test email', which doesn't clarify the nature of side effects or potential destructive implications. It does not disclose what happens to recipients, whether the automation's state changes, or any impact beyond sending. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single concise sentence with no redundancy. It directly states the action and target, front-loading the key information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and the parameter schema is complete, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient for a simple test email action. However, the destructiveHint annotation suggests more complex behavior that the description does not address, leaving some uncertainty about side effects. Overall, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, with both parameters already well-described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies as the schema carries the burden.

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 states a clear action (send a test email) and resource (an automation). It differentiates from the general send_email sibling by specifying 'for an automation', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The title aligns with the description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_email, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing automation). The parameter description hints that id comes from list_automations, but this is not in the tool description. There is no mention of use cases or exclusions.

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

All Oviond 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?