Scribe Mail

List signature variants

list_signature_variants

Read-onlyIdempotent

List a signature's reply and internal variants (always both entries). A variant is an alternate signature shown on reply emails (reply) or internal/same-domain emails (internal). Each entry reports its state (exists / activated / hidden / show_marketing_campaigns) and content. Also returns supported: variants require an active Microsoft 365 signatures integration, and writes return 409 variants_unavailable when it's false.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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."
`signature_id`	Yes	The primary signature's UUID (the `id` from list_signatures).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`supported`	Yes	Whether this workspace can use variants (it has an active Microsoft 365 signatures integration). Writes return 409 variants_unavailable when false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / created_at / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / created_at / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / last_published_at / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / last_published_at / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / updated_at / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / items / properties / updated_at / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the guaranteed presence of both variant entries, the per-entry state fields (exists / activated / hidden / show_marketing_campaigns), and the `supported` flag with the 409 variants_unavailable error that downstream writes will hit.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is listed, what a variant is, and what each entry plus the `supported` gate reports. Scope constraint is front-loaded and there is no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to cover behavior the structured fields can't express — and it does, via the guaranteed dual entries and the `supported`/409 gating. Minor gap: it doesn't relate itself explicitly to update_signature_variant or publish_signature_variant, which are the obvious next calls when `supported` is true.

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 signature_id documented as the primary signature's UUID from list_signatures and context documented as an analytics-only field. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list a signature's reply and internal variants) and immediately defines what a 'variant' is in this product's terms. It also clarifies scope ('always both entries'), which distinguishes it from list_signatures and from the get/preview siblings without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

The final sentence gives actionable gating guidance: variants require an active Microsoft 365 signatures integration and the returned `supported` flag determines whether write operations are viable. It does not explicitly name the alternative read tools (list_signatures, preview_signature) or state when not to call it, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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.