Scribe Mail

Create a teammate

create_teammate

Create a new teammate from a primary email plus optional smart-field values. Only available when the workspace manages its own team list — if a directory integration (Google, Microsoft or Zoho Mail) drives teammates, this returns a 409 conflict. Email aliases are managed separately.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Primary email address for the new teammate. Required, must be valid and not already used.
`context`	Yes	Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
`smart_fields`	No	Optional initial smart-field values, by smart_field_id (UUID). Integration-synced and image fields are ignored; an unknown id or a value invalid for its field type fails the whole create.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / smart_fields / items / properties / value / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / smart_fields / items / properties / value / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / smart_field_values / items / properties / image_url / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / smart_field_values / items / properties / image_url / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / smart_field_values / items / properties / integration_id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / smart_field_values / items / properties / integration_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / smart_field_values / items / properties / value / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / smart_field_values / items / properties / value / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the 409 conflict for directory-driven workspaces, that integration-synced and image fields are silently ignored, and that an unknown smart_field_id or type-invalid value fails the entire create atomically. These are exactly the failure-mode facts an agent cannot get from 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the create action and inputs, then the precondition, then the alias caveat. No restatement of the tool name or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description's remaining job is preconditions and failure behavior, and it covers both (409 on directory-driven workspaces, atomic failure on bad smart-field input). Nothing material an agent needs before calling is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by clarifying that 'email' is the primary address (aliases handled elsewhere) and that smart_fields is an optional initial-value set whose bad entries abort the whole call. It does not add syntax detail beyond the schema, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new teammate') plus the input shape ('from a primary email plus optional smart-field values'), which cleanly separates it from list_teammates, update_teammate, delete_teammate and sync_teammates in the sibling set. The availability precondition is stated in the same breath, so the agent knows this is the manual-creation path rather than the directory-sync path.

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 an explicit when-not condition: if a directory integration (Google, Microsoft, Zoho Mail) drives teammates, this returns 409, so the agent should not call it in that workspace. It also flags that email aliases are managed separately, steering the agent away from expecting alias behavior here. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. sync_teammates) by name, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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

All Scribe Mail 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.