send_test_email
Send a test email to yourself to preview formatting
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| providerId | No | Provider ID (optional, uses first available) |
Mailcannon
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It states the tool sends an email to the user, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active provider, potential delays, or side effects (e.g., triggering spam checks). The optional providerId parameter suggests dependency on a provider, yet this is not mentioned in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence of 10 words), which would be appropriate only if all necessary details were captured. However, given the missing parameter descriptions and behavioral context, the conciseness results in under-specification. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one misses critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon success, how the user receives the test email, or any error scenarios. The agent cannot determine prerequisites (e.g., configured provider) or the tool's scope relative to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 33% (only providerId has a description). The description adds no information about parameters like 'subject' or 'body', leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate by describing parameter roles, formats, or constraints, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends a test email to the user for formatting preview. The verb 'send' and resource 'test email' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like check_email_spam_score, but the unique target 'to yourself' provides implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies the tool is for previewing formatting, but it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., having a configured email provider) or exclude scenarios where this tool is inappropriate. Sibling tools include other email-related actions, but no comparative information is given.
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.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource. Campaign lifecycle steps (create, update, delete, schedule, pause, resume) are clearly separate from contact management (add, remove, update tags) and provider/domain operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., add_contact, check_domain_deliverability, delete_campaign_step). Mixing of singular/plural nouns (list_campaigns vs list_tags) is intentional and does not break consistency.
Tool Count4/5
34 tools is high but justified for a full-featured email campaign server covering campaigns, contacts, providers, scheduling, deliverability, and task management. A few tools like check_email_spam_score and check_step_spam_score could be merged, but overall the count is reasonable.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the complete CRM lifecycle: campaign CRUD, step management, contact CRUD with tags, provider setup, scheduling, deliverability checks, and spam analysis. Only minor gaps like per-campaign analytics or import/export exist, but core workflows are fully covered.