BriefGate

Manage intake recipients

manage_recipients

Destructive

Add, remove, or reinstate a person who receives an intake's invite and reminders, alongside or instead of the primary client.

action="add" invites another address the same way also_notify does at define_intake time — its own message, its own bounce state; pass name to address it by name. action="remove" stops future reminders to that address. action="reinstate" is for a bounce that was wrong — the person did get the e-mail — and clears the bounce flag so reminders resume; if that address was the only one still being chased, the schedule is re-planned from now.

Fails if the address is not on the intake, or — for reinstate — if it never bounced in the first place.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Their name, used to address their copy. Only used with action="add".
`email`	Yes	The recipient's e-mail address.
`action`	Yes	What to do with the address.
`intake_id`	Yes	Intake ID returned by define_intake.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedOutput schema / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "bounced_at": {
-        "type": "null"
-      },
-      "email": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "still_chasing": {
-        "type": "boolean"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "email",
-      "bounced_at",
-      "still_chasing"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "bounced_at": {
+        "type": "null"
+      },
+      "email": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "still_chasing": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

AddedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals important side effects beyond the annotations: it stops future reminders, clears the bounce flag, re-plans the schedule if the reinstated address was the only one being chased, and fails under specific conditions. This gives the agent a much clearer picture of what mutating the recipient list entails.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the overall purpose, then unpacks each action in turn, and ends with failure conditions. There is no filler or repetition of schema text; every sentence contributes a distinct fact needed to choose and invoke an action.

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 an output schema present and annotations already signaling mutation, destructiveness, and idempotency, the description covers all operational essentials: action semantics, parameter roles, error conditions, and schedule re-planning. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds useful semantic detail by explaining what each action actually does to the recipient and when name is relevant, which goes beyond the schema's brief field 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 opening sentence names the resource (intake recipients) and the three operations (add, remove, reinstate), making the tool's purpose specific. It also distinguishes this from creation-time recipient setup by referencing 'also_notify does at define_intake time', so an agent understands this manages recipients after intake creation.

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?

Each action is tied to a concrete scenario: add invites, remove stops reminders, and reinstate clears a wrong bounce. The reference to define_intake's also_notify gives context for when this tool is the right post-creation choice, though it stops short of explicitly saying 'do not use for initial recipient setup'.

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

All BriefGate 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?