anima

Send Email

email_send

Send a new outbound email from the agent mailbox. Use this when you need to compose and deliver a message with optional CC, threading headers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	Optional CC recipient email addresses.
`to`	Yes	List of recipient email addresses.
`bcc`	No	Optional BCC recipient email addresses.
`body`	Yes	Plain-text body content for the email.
`agentId`	Yes	Agent ID sending the email.
`headers`	No	Optional custom email headers as key-value pairs (e.g. {"X-Campaign": "onboarding"}). Merged with Anima's own threading/compliance headers, which win on conflict.
`subject`	Yes	Subject line for the outgoing email.
`bodyHtml`	No	Optional HTML body content for rich email formatting.
`inReplyTo`	No	Optional message ID to set the In-Reply-To header for threading.
`references`	No	Optional References chain, oldest first: RFC 5322 Message-IDs (an email's `externalId`), not Anima message ids. Omit it on a reply: the chain is derived from `inReplyTo`.
`attachments`	No	Optional file attachments (max 20 entries, 25MB total). Each entry must provide either `content` (base64-inline) or `url` (public URL for server-fetch). Use `contentId` for inline images referenced in HTML via `cid:` URIs.
`fromIdentityId`	No	Optional EmailIdentity ID to send from. Must belong to this agent and be verified. If omitted, the agent's primary identity is used. Use this to route different message types through different identities (e.g. transactional from @brawz.ai, support from @support.brawz.ai). Discover available IDs from the `emailIdentities` array returned by agent_get.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`status`	No
`messageId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / references / description

Previous value: -"Optional list of message IDs to include in the References header."New value: +"Optional References chain, oldest first: RFC 5322 Message-IDs (an email's `externalId`), not Anima message ids. Omit it on a reply: the chain is derived from `inReplyTo`."

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the description is not burdened with that. It adds the useful 'agent mailbox' context and positions this as compose-and-deliver, but does not disclose traits such as immediate external delivery, irreversibility, or sending limits.

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 front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The core action and sender scope come first, and the usage cue is placed in the second sentence.

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?

For a complex 12-parameter tool with a rich schema, an output schema, and useful annotations, the description is adequate. It would be more complete if it pointed to email_reply, email_forward, or email_draft_send for non-new-message cases, but the schema fills in the invocation details.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description only mentions optional CC and threading headers, which adds slight emphasis but no meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Send'), the resource ('a new outbound email'), and the scope ('from the agent mailbox'). Saying 'new' differentiates it from reply/forward/draft-send siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

'Use this when you need to compose and deliver a message' gives a clear context for when the tool applies. It does not mention when not to use it (e.g., when replying, forwarding, or sending an existing draft), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

All anima 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.