Skip to main content
Glama

PricklyMails

by com.pricklymails
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

append_batch_emails

Append a chunk of emails (up to 4096) to a batch created by submit_batch with final: false, so a bulk job can grow past the single-call cap. Reserves and queues this chunk exactly like submit_batch, and accepts the same optional checks field; a streamed caller should pass the same checks on every chunk so the whole batch runs one check set. Pass the same api_key used on the original submit_batch call to keep billing and scoping on that account; omit it to use the caller's own session account. Requires the email:verify:bulk scope on whichever account ends up authenticating the call. Set final_chunk true on the last chunk to close intake; the batch then completes once every job (old and new) finishes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
finalNoWhether this is the batch's final chunk (defaults to true). Set false to keep intake open for a further append_batch_emails call.
checksNoOptional check wire strings (syntax, mx, smtp, disposable, role, free, catchall); defaults to every check the caller's plan allows, smtp included. A streamed caller should pass the same checks on every chunk so the whole batch runs one check set.
emailsYesEmail addresses to verify in this chunk (up to 4096). May be empty to close intake without adding more emails. A final chunk is refused when the batch would close with fewer than batch_min (20) distinct valid addresses; the batch then stays open.
api_keyNoOptional pm_live_ (or pm_test_) API key, matching the one used on the original submit_batch call. When present, this chunk is billed and scoped against that key's own account instead of the caller's session account, and the key must carry the email:verify:bulk scope. Omit to use the caller's own session account.
batch_uuidYesPublic batch UUID of an open batch (created by submit_batch with final: false).
custom_idsNoOptional per-email client references, index-aligned 1:1 with emails. Echoed back verbatim in get_batch_results so you can map each result to your input row. Do not put the email address or any PII here, use your own row identifier (e.g. a CRM id).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / checks / description
      Previous value: -"Optional check wire strings (syntax, mx, smtp, disposable, role, free, catchall); defaults to the plan's allowed checks minus smtp. A streamed caller should pass the same checks on every chunk so the whole batch runs one check set."New value: +"Optional check wire strings (syntax, mx, smtp, disposable, role, free, catchall); defaults to every check the caller's plan allows, smtp included. A streamed caller should pass the same checks on every chunk so the whole batch runs one check set."
    • changedInput schema / properties / emails / description
      Previous value: -"Email addresses to verify in this chunk (up to 4096). May be empty to close intake without adding more emails."New value: +"Email addresses to verify in this chunk (up to 4096). May be empty to close intake without adding more emails. A final chunk is refused when the batch would close with fewer than batch_min (20) distinct valid addresses; the batch then stays open."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses rich behavior: it reserves and queues the chunk exactly like submit_batch, keeps billing and scoping on the api_key account, requires the email:verify:bulk scope, and explains that the batch completes only after all old and new jobs finish. It also discloses that an api_key omitted means the caller's session account is used.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and then packs auth, billing, checks, and lifecycle into one dense paragraph. It is appropriately sized for a complex batch operation, though the long single paragraph and some repetition slightly reduce readability.

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 six-parameter bulk mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical operational context: scope, billing, checks consistency, chunk size, and finalization behavior. The main gap is the final_chunk versus final naming error, plus no explicit note about custom_ids or response shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, and the description does add useful meaning for checks, api_key, and intake closing. However, it says 'Set final_chunk true on the last chunk' even though the actual parameter is named 'final', which can mislead an agent into passing a nonexistent parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: appending a chunk of emails (up to 4096) to an existing batch. It explicitly distinguishes this from submit_batch by tying it to batches created with final: false and bulk jobs exceeding the single-call cap.

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?

It gives clear usage conditions: use this to grow a bulk job past the single-call cap, pass the same checks on every chunk, pass the same api_key as the original submit_batch, and set the final chunk to close intake. The alternative path (submit_batch) is named and the selection condition is explicit.

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

All PricklyMails toolsInspect
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