Skip to main content
Glama

HTML Email Playbook

by io.github.OsamaHassouna
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_playbook_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return rule pages. format "checklist": each page as its slug, title, description and a short list of the rules to follow, without the body or code; leave out category to get every page in one call (about 16 KB). format "full" (default, needs a category): each page with title, description, checklist, markdown body and all HTML/CSS code examples. Start with the checklists, then fetch the pages you need with get_rule. Components are not included: use list_components / get_component.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNofull (default): whole pages with code. checklist: titles and rules only.
categoryNoWhich rule category to fetch. Required for format "full"; optional for "checklist".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / category / description
      Previous value: -"Which rule category to fetch."New value: +"Which rule category to fetch. Required for format \"full\"; optional for \"checklist\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / format
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "full (default): whole pages with code. checklist: titles and rules only.",
+  "enum": [
+    "full",
+    "checklist"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "category"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: an approximate payload size (~16 KB) for the category-less checklist call and the explicit statement that components are out of scope. It stops short of saying what the full body/code payload costs, but the coverage is good.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then format semantics, then the sibling hand-off — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly run-on, blending format and category rules into one clause chain, which costs a point.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields for each format (slug, title, description, rules list for checklist; plus markdown body and HTML/CSS for full). What an agent needs to call and interpret the result is present; pagination or rate-limit behavior is not addressed but is not obviously required for a ~16 KB read.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both enums are documented there, including the full-vs-checklist defaults and the category dependency, so the description largely restates structured data. Its only added value is the ~16 KB size signal for the omnibus checklist call. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ("Return rule pages") and immediately distinguishes the two operating modes by name. It also carves out what the tool does NOT return (components) and names the sibling tools that cover that case, so an agent can separate it from get_rule and list_components without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing: "Start with the checklists, then fetch the pages you need with get_rule" tells the agent the intended workflow and the follow-up tool. The exclusion note ("Components are not included: use list_components / get_component") removes the main wrong-tool risk.

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

All HTML Email Playbook 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