Skip to main content
Glama

YouSpot

by com.youspot

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.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses critical behaviors: recipient is fixed and cannot be changed, Markdown is rendered through a template, HTML is rejected, no sign-off is added, object links must originate from actual graph tool results, and chat links are resolved to pre-filled prompts. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 longer than average but well-structured with sections and examples. Every major behavioral rule earns its place, though there is minor redundancy with the schema's parameter descriptions for body and links.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description covers all essential invocation aspects: recipient, use cases, subject fallback behavior, body format, link constraints, required closing link, and prohibitions. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly without additional context.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining subject line composition expectations, Markdown rendering rules, and the exact semantics of object vs. chat links, including the silent-failure risk for invalid object ids.

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: sending an email to the signed-in user's own address. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_gmail_draft, making the tool's unique scope immediately clear.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers with quoted user phrases like 'email me this' and 'send myself a reminder'. It also names the alternative tool for emailing others and explains why create_gmail_draft is preferred in that case, providing clear exclusion guidance.

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

All YouSpot toolsInspect
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are scoped to a distinct resource and action, and descriptions do a good job separating close pairs like search_connections vs ask_about_connections or get_my_linkedin_posts vs linkedin_analytics. However, the multiple deletion tools (delete_graph_object, delete_graph_objects, purge_graph_object) and the several file-reading tools are easy to confuse without reading the descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as create_, get_, list_, search_, send_, and delete_. A handful of noun-phrase outliers like linkedin_analytics, mutual_connections, top_message_correspondents, and what_needs_attention break the pattern, so it is highly consistent but not perfect.

Tool Count1/5

64 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the typical well-scoped 3-15 tool range and even beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the server covers many integrations, this many tools creates a heavy navigation burden and would be better split into focused servers per domain.

Completeness3/5

Core graph/CRM operations and read-side integration coverage are strong, with search, get, list, and create tools across most domains. However, there are notable dead ends: no delete_calendar_event, no tracker management beyond create_tracker, and set_follow_up explicitly lacks a read-back query tool, so some natural user requests cannot be completed through the toolset.

Resources