Scribe Mail

Publish a signature

publish_signature

Destructive

Publish a signature template: copy draft_content into the live content and, when the workspace can, trigger installation to connected mail clients. SIDE EFFECT: a successful publish also activates installation for the template (signature_installation_activated becomes true) — the signature goes live to its recipients' mail clients, not just in the API. Confirm with the user before publishing a signature that has recipients. Returns the updated template (with last_published_at set).

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / folder_id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / folder_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / internal_variant_uuid / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / internal_variant_uuid / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / last_published_at / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / last_published_at / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / name / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / name / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / priority / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / priority / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / reply_variant_uuid / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / reply_variant_uuid / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Going beyond the destructive/non-idempotent annotations, it discloses the concrete side effect: a successful publish flips `signature_installation_activated` to true and pushes the signature live to recipients' mail clients, not just the API. It also states the return value (`last_published_at` set) and warns to confirm first, which is exactly the context an agent needs for a destructive, open-world write.

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 destructive side effect is front-loaded in a clearly marked 'SIDE EFFECT' sentence, and every sentence contributes: mechanism, side effect, confirmation gate, return value. It could tighten slightly with the parenthetical restatement, but there is no 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, the description need not explain return payload structure in detail — and it still notes the updated template and `last_published_at`. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description supplies the domain-specific consequence (live installation to recipients), leaving no material gap.

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 100%, and both parameters (`id` and `context`) are thoroughly documented in the schema, including the awkward third-person `context` constraint. The description adds no parameter-specific detail; the fields it mentions (`draft_content`, `content`, `last_published_at`) are template data, not inputs. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource (publish a signature template) and explains the mechanism: copying `draft_content` into live `content` and triggering installation. It is clearly distinct from CRUD siblings like update_signature, though it does not explicitly contrast with install_signature or publish_signature_variant.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a clear caution — confirm with the user before publishing a signature that has recipients — which is genuinely useful gating guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over the closely named siblings install_signature, install_signature_for_email, or publish_signature_variant, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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.