Skip to main content
Glama

Send email

send_email

Send an email to the signed-in user at their own account email address. Use this when the user asks to be sent something — 'email me this', 'send myself a reminder', 'send me that summary as an email'. The recipient is fixed to their own address and cannot be changed. To write an email to anyone else, use create_gmail_draft instead — it drafts in their Gmail without sending. Compose a short, specific subject line yourself if the user didn't give one.

The body is Markdown, rendered into the YouSpot email template before sending: '## ' subheadings, '- ' bullets, bold, > quotes and tables all work. Do not write HTML, and do not add a sign-off or a footer — the template supplies both.

LINKS. Never write an absolute youspot.com URL; you do not reliably know them, and a wrong one reaches the reader as a dead link. Write one of these two forms instead and they are resolved for you: Acme Corp — links to an object in the user's graph. The id must come from a graph tool result you actually ran; an id that is not theirs silently loses its link. [Which of these should I chase?](chat:Which of these prospects should I chase first?) — opens chat with that question ready to send. Link the objects you name, so the reader can go straight to what you are telling them about. End with one 'chat:' link offering the obvious next question — it is the cheapest way for them to act on what you found. The reader sends that question as their own, so never put their employer, title or role in it unless the About this user block states it; ask without naming a company rather than guess one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe body of the email, as Markdown. Use [label](object:<id>) to link a graph object and [label](chat:<question>) to link a ready-to-send chat question.
subjectYesThe email subject line.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses many behaviors not visible in annotations: recipient is fixed, Markdown is rendered into a template, HTML/footers/sign-offs are rejected, absolute youspot.com URLs fail, object ids must come from an actually run graph tool, and chat: links are sent as the reader's own question. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false.

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 description is long, but each section earns its place: purpose/usage is front-loaded, a labeled LINKS section handles the highest-risk instructions, and examples clarify exact syntax. It could be tightened slightly, but it is well structured and not padded.

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?

For a two-parameter side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: recipient, content rules, link behavior, required closing chat link, and privacy guardrails. No critical gap remains.

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, but the description adds real value: it specifies supported Markdown constructs, tells the agent to compose a short specific subject if absent, and explains the object:/chat: link requirements in more detail than the schema. It does not fully compensate for anything missing, but the schema already carries the load.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: 'Send an email to the signed-in user at their own account email address.' It also differentiates this tool from create_gmail_draft, so an agent can distinguish the self-email send from drafting to other recipients.

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?

The description gives explicit trigger phrases ('email me this', 'send myself a reminder', 'send me that summary as an email') and an explicit alternative: 'To write an email to anyone else, use create_gmail_draft instead.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to select it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.