Scribe Mail

Send yourself a test of a signature

send_test_email

Mail the user a test of a signature's DRAFT, to their own inbox and no one else's: what publish would install (the published design when the signature has no draft), with one email's real values and no tracking. To see a design in a real mail client (dark mode, Outlook, a phone) before anyone gets it: use it instead of copying, assigning, publishing or installing a signature to check it. There is no recipient to set: it goes to the signed-in user's own address (sent_to in the result), never a teammate's or anyone else's. email_id chooses whose values show; the user's own by default. Sent in the background, usually within a minute. 10 an hour per user: 429 rate_limited past that, say so and stop. 422 on email_id when the user has no address in the workspace (ask whose values to show), or on draft_content when the signature has no design yet. Unknown signature or email → 404.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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."
`email_id`	No	UUID of the email whose values (name, title, phone…) the test shows: the `id` from list_emails, e.g. a teammate's, to see their signature. Omit for the user's own address in the workspace. It only chooses the values: the mail still goes to the user alone.
`signature_id`	Yes	UUID of the signature to test (from list_signatures).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations present, it still adds substantial context: the send goes only to the signed-in user's address (surfaced as `sent_to`), runs in the background within a minute, and is capped at 10/hour with a 429 `rate_limited` response. It also enumerates 422 and 404 failure conditions, which annotations cannot express.

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 purpose, recipient constraint, and usage in the first two clauses, then attaches timing, rate limit, and error semantics. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the error enumeration borders on over-packed.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies recipient behavior, async timing, rate limits, and error codes, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies `email_id` only selects whose values display (the user's own by default) while the mail still goes to the user alone, and ties a 422 to `email_id` when the user has no workspace address. This goes beyond the schema's field-level text.

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 ('Mail the user a test of a signature's DRAFT') plus precise scope ('their own inbox and no one else's'). It explicitly frames what would be installed, cleanly separating it from preview_signature, publish_signature, and install_signature.

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?

Gives an explicit when ('to see a design in a real mail client before anyone gets it') and names the alternatives it replaces ('instead of copying, assigning, publishing or installing a signature to check it'). Nothing is left to inference.

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.