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

TableJSON 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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the key non-obvious trait: a successful publish activates installation so the signature goes live to recipients' mail clients, not just the API. It also discloses the returned template carries last_published_at. This is exactly the beyond-annotations context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the side-effect warning early. Slightly long at four sentences, with the 'live to recipients, not just in the API' clause partially restating the side-effect line, but every sentence carries useful signal.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need only minimal mention, yet the description still frames the mechanic, the installation side effect, and the confirmation caution. Nothing an agent needs to decide or safely invoke this destructive tool is missing.

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%, so both `id` and the analytics `context` field are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions draft_content/content/last_published_at, which are template fields rather than input parameters, so it adds no syntactic or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Publish a signature template') and then explains the mechanic (copy draft_content into live content, trigger installation). This distinguishes it from siblings like install_signature, publish_signature_variant, and update_signature, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 a clear conditional guideline — 'Confirm with the user before publishing a signature that has recipients' — and notes installation fires 'when the workspace can.' It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., publish_signature_variant for variants, install_signature for install-only), so context is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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.