rankparse-mcp

outreach_configure_sending

Update the Gmail sending schedule of ONE mailbox (the workspace default unless you pass mailbox_id from outreach_sending_status; each mailbox has its own cap and switch): max_sends_per_day (1-100, shared by the campaigns that send from that mailbox) and/or auto_send_enabled (false stops all sending from that mailbox, true resumes it). Lowering the cap or turning sending off applies immediately. For most accounts, raising the cap or turning sending on needs the user's approval in RankParse: the response is 202 with ok true, status awaiting_approval and a review_url, and nothing has been increased yet, so show the user the review_url. For other accounts a raise applies directly and returns ok true. A request that mixes both applies the decrease or disable now and proposes the rest; the message then starts "Applied now: ...". If it fails with change_in_progress, another sending change is already approved or running. The increase was not applied, but any decrease or disable in the same request has been applied (see applied and message): send the increase again after it completes (check list_proposals). If status is approved, it is already approved; do not ask again. Confirm with the user before changing these; they control real email volume.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mailbox_id`	No	A mailbox_id from outreach_sending_status. Omit it for the workspace default mailbox.
`auto_send_enabled`	No	Master switch for the hourly send sweep of the mailbox
`max_sends_per_day`	No	Daily send cap for the mailbox (1-100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / auto_send_enabled / description

Previous value: -"Master switch for the hourly send sweep"New value: +"Master switch for the hourly send sweep of the mailbox"

addedInput schema / properties / mailbox_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A mailbox_id from outreach_sending_status. Omit it for the workspace default mailbox.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / max_sends_per_day / description

Previous value: -"Daily send cap across all campaigns (1-100)"New value: +"Daily send cap for the mailbox (1-100)"

AddedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare it as a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent mutation; the description carries the substantive behavior: decreases/disables apply immediately while increases may require approval (202, ok true, awaiting_approval, review_url), mixed requests partially apply, and change_in_progress means an increase was not applied while any decrease in the same request was. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the branching behavior is sequenced logically. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information about approval vs immediate application; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: response shapes (202/awaiting_approval/ok true), field names to inspect (applied, message, status, review_url), the conflict code change_in_progress, and the re-approval rule. Nothing material is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the cap is shared by all campaigns sending from that mailbox, auto_send_enabled=false stops all sending from that mailbox, and omitting mailbox_id targets the workspace default. It does not add format details beyond that, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 precise verb (update) plus resource (Gmail sending schedule) and immediately narrows scope to ONE mailbox, naming the sibling tool (outreach_sending_status) that supplies mailbox_id. An agent can distinguish this from outreach_pause_campaign / outreach_resume_campaign without opening the 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 when-to-use guidance: get mailbox_id from outreach_sending_status, confirm with the user before changing, show the user the review_url, re-send the increase after change_in_progress clears by checking list_proposals, and do not re-ask if status is approved. Covers both the happy path and the failure branches.

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

All rankparse-mcp 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?