Colin Wynd (tarvit.com)

Send Colin Wynd a message

request_contact

Destructive

Sends Colin Wynd an email from the user (for example a speaking invitation or a professional inquiry), with the user's email address as the reply-to. Works in two calls: without confirmation_code it sends nothing and returns a preview plus a code; with the same fields and that code, after the user has approved the preview, it sends the message. Colin Wynd's own address is never returned.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "reply_email": "<reply_email>",
      "topic": "<topic>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "request_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The user's full name
`topic`	Yes	One-line subject
`message`	Yes	The message, written or approved by the user
`reply_email`	Yes	Email address where the user wants the reply
`organization`	No	The user's company or organization, if any
`confirmation_code`	No	Code from the preview step; include only after the user has confirmed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that nothing is sent on the first call, that a preview and code are returned, that the code must accompany an identical payload to actually send, and that the recipient's address is never exposed. This complements destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false with the concrete safety mechanism (human approval gate).

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, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the call protocol, then the privacy guarantee. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 no output schema, the description still explains what comes back (a preview plus a code) and the key privacy property. For a destructive, non-idempotent send tool, the two-step confirmation contract is fully specified.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by framing confirmation_code as a preview-gated token that must be paired with the same field values, which the schema alone only hints at. Other parameters (name, topic, message, reply_email, organization) are left to the already-complete schema.

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: sends an email to a named recipient on the user's behalf, with the user's address as reply-to. The examples (speaking invitation, professional inquiry) clarify scope, and nothing among the read-only siblings (fetch, search, get_profile) could be confused with it.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-call protocol: call without confirmation_code to get a preview, then repeat with the same fields plus the code only after user approval. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name or exclude any sibling alternative (none of which appears to be a competing send tool).

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

All Colin Wynd (tarvit.com) 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.

Resources

Need Help?