Skip to main content
Glama

Set form recipients

set_form_recipients
Destructive

Set where a site's form messages go: 1 to 5 email addresses, all in one message, or reset: true for the account address. Not for WordPress, which sends its own form mail.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>"
    },
    "name": "set_form_recipients"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
resetNo
serviceIdYesthe id of a service on this account

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
errorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / serviceId / description
      Previous value: -"the service id from list_services"New value: +"the id of a service on this account"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it changes where form messages go and can reset to the account address, but it does not explicitly say existing recipients are overwritten or mention auth/permission behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The WordPress caveat earns its place by preventing misuse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a simple mutation tool with an output schema, and annotations cover destructiveness. But the `to` count mismatch and missing detail about overwriting existing recipients leave meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains `to` and `reset`, but says '1 to 5 email addresses' while the schema allows maxItems 20, creating a constraint conflict; `serviceId` is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Set where a site's form messages go.' It also names a non-use case ('Not for WordPress, which sends its own form mail'), distinguishing it from WordPress-related siblings.

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?

The WordPress exclusion gives clear context on when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare with nearby siblings like form_mail or mail_status, nor state prerequisites such as permissions.

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.

Resources