Sweeppea MCP

send_file

Send a file from the user's Drive as an email attachment. Max attachment size: 5 MB. Files larger than 5 MB are rejected. The email is sent using the Sweeppea email template. Each transmission is recorded in the file's sharing history. PRIVACY: The recipient email must be provided by the user — never assume or fabricate email addresses.

send_file

When to use

Parameters to validate before calling

file_token (string, required) — The file token (UUID) of the file to send. Get via fetch_files.
recipient_email (string, required) — Destination email address
email_subject (string, optional) — Custom email subject line. Default: "File shared from Sweeppea".
email_message (string, optional) — Additional message text for the email body.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file_token`	Yes	The file token (UUID) of the file to send. Get via fetch_files.
`email_message`	No	Additional message text for the email body.
`email_subject`	No	Custom email subject line. Default: "File shared from Sweeppea".
`recipient_email`	Yes	Destination email address

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: max attachment size (5 MB) and rejection behavior, use of a specific email template, recording in sharing history, and a strong privacy guideline about not fabricating recipient emails. This goes well beyond the generic readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is duplicated: the initial paragraph is repeated under 'When to use', and the parameter list largely mirrors the schema. This redundancy violates the 'every sentence earns its place' principle. It is not concise despite the useful content.

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?

Given 4 params and no output schema, the description covers essential context: purpose, size constraint, template, history logging, privacy, and parameter origins. It lacks success/error return behavior, but for an invocation-focused description this is sufficient. Not perfect, but well-rounded.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds value: it tells the agent to get file_token via fetch_files, stresses that recipient_email must be user-provided (privacy), and clarifies the email_subject default. These enrich parameter understanding beyond simple data types and descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Send a file from the user's Drive as an email attachment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file or get_file_url. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 'When to use' section repeats the description rather than giving explicit alternatives. However, it does imply usage context (when a file needs to be emailed) and the parameter note 'Get via fetch_files' provides a prerequisite. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Sweeppea MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.

Resources

Need Help?