Skip to main content
Glama

Salesbot - B2B outreach LinkedIn MCP Server with CRM and email

by cz.salesbot
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

send_email

Queue a personalised e-mail for one person from the user's own mailbox (provider 'mailbox', provider_campaign_id = mailbox_id from list_email_integrations). Salesbot sends it inside the user's sending hours, spaced out and capped per day (status queued → sent). In the Czech Republic an unsolicited commercial e-mail needs the recipient's prior consent (§ 7 of Act 480/2004 Coll.); without consent e-mail only existing customers or people who replied or asked for it — use LinkedIn for first contact with new people. Before sending to someone new, ask the user whether the person consented or is an existing customer. Pass crm_lead_id or contact_id, subject and body (placeholders like {{first_name}}, {{company}}, {{oslovení}} are filled per person). If the person has no address, pass email — it is saved to the contact. When approval is required (see list_email_integrations) the e-mail waits in Salesbot for the user (status pending_approval) — tell the user, never claim it was sent. Refuses blacklisted domains, people on the do-not-contact list and duplicates. Every e-mail is checked by Salesbot first (the person's name and gender in the greeting, their company, leftover placeholders like {{company}} or (název firmy), Czech grammar, and no signature in the body when the mailbox appends its own): on error AI_CHECK_FAILED nothing is sent — fix exactly what the error says and call send_email again; a second failure goes to the user's manual approval. Statuses: pending_approval (waits for the user in Salesbot → CRM → E-maily), approved (approved, not yet in the provider — usually a temporary provider error; retry by approving again), queued (in the provider campaign, or waiting for its slot in the user's own mailbox), sending, sent, replied, bounced, unsubscribed, paused, completed, failed (see error), rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesPlain-text e-mail body.
emailNoRecipient address; required when the person has none saved.
subjectNo
providerNoAlways 'mailbox' (the user's own Outlook or IMAP/SMTP mailbox).
contact_idNo
crm_lead_idNo
provider_campaign_idYesmailbox_id from list_email_integrations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / followup_body
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional follow-up used by {{email_1follow_up_body}}.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Added value: +"Always 'mailbox' (the user's own Outlook or IMAP/SMTP mailbox)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "smartlead",
-  "instantly",
-  "mailbox"
-]New value: +[
+  "mailbox"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider_campaign_id / description
      Previous value: -"Provider campaign id, or mailbox_id for provider 'mailbox'."New value: +"mailbox_id from list_email_integrations."
    • removedInput schema / properties / provider_campaign_name
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "provider",
-  "provider_campaign_id",
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "provider_campaign_id",
+  "body"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "smartlead",
-  "instantly"
-]New value: +[
+  "smartlead",
+  "instantly",
+  "mailbox"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider_campaign_id / description
      Added value: +"Provider campaign id, or mailbox_id for provider 'mailbox'."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds far more: the approval gate (pending_approval, tell the user, never claim it was sent), blacklist/do-not-contact/duplicate refusal, the Salesbot AI_CHECK_FAILED pre-send check with retry semantics, and the meaning of approved/queued/failed on retry.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence front-loads purpose correctly and most content earns its place, but the body is a dense wall of run-on parentheticals and a long trailing status enumeration that is hard to scan. It would be materially clearer as short structured clauses rather than one paragraph.

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?

There is no output schema and this is a non-idempotent write with an async approval workflow, so the description must carry the full burden — and it does. It covers approval flow, provider-campaign placement, validation failures and their retry behavior, and the complete status lifecycle including rejected/failed.

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 only 57%, but the description compensates well: it maps provider_campaign_id to mailbox_id from list_email_integrations, explains that email is saved to the contact when none exists, notes crm_lead_id/contact_id selection, and documents body/subject placeholders like {{first_name}}. However, contact_id and subject themselves are never characterized beyond being name-dropped, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 ('Queue a personalised e-mail for one person from the user's own mailbox') and pins the exact scope (one person, the user's own mailbox, provider 'mailbox'). This clearly separates it from siblings like send_linkedin_message and add_contacts_to_campaign, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Explicitly states when-to-use and when-not: 'use LinkedIn for first contact with new people', the Czech § 7 consent rule, and 'Before sending to someone new, ask the user whether the person consented or is an existing customer.' It also routes to list_email_integrations for approval config and names the refusal conditions, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Salesbot - B2B outreach LinkedIn MCP Server with CRM and email toolsInspect
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