Skip to main content
Glama

Ray notifications

by io.github.gege-mn
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Test-send template

test_send_template

Send a real test of a template's PUBLISHED version to one recipient (POST /templates/{id}/test-send; write scope). It goes through the provider for real, so use a recipient the user controls. Test sends don't count toward the monthly quota (a small daily allowance applies instead) and never appear in feeds. Returns { sendId } for get_send_status.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNoValues for the template's `{{placeholders}}`. Any JSON: strings, numbers, booleans, arrays and nested objects (arrays/objects drive `{{#section}}…{{/section}}` blocks). Missing required params are rejected with a 400 naming them.
recipientYesChannel-specific delivery target. Its shape depends on the kind of the chosen channel (list_channels returns each channel's exact `recipientSchema`): ses_email / smtp_email → `{ email, name?, cc?: [{ email, name? }], bcc?: [...], from?: { email?, name? } (per-send sender override; omitted fields fall back to the channel config; email must be on exactly the domain of the config fromAddress, subdomains rejected), replyTo?: [{ email, name? }], headers?: { "X-Name": "value" } (ASCII, max 15; From/To/Cc/Bcc/Reply-To/Subject etc. and provider controls such as X-SES-*/X-SMTPAPI/X-PM-*/X-Mailgun-* rejected), attachments?: [{ filename, content (base64), contentType?, disposition?: "attachment"|"inline", contentId? }] }`; fcm_push → `{ deviceToken }` OR `{ topic }` (exactly one; Ray keeps no device registry); telegram_bot → `{ chatId }` (numeric id as a string, or "@channelname"); twilio_sms → `{ phoneNumber }` (international E.164, e.g. "+97699112233"); sendsms_mn → `{ phoneNumber }` (Mongolian 8-digit, e.g. "99112233"); slack_webhook, discord_webhook, generic_webhook → `{}` (the destination is part of the channel config).
templateIdYesThe template id (UUID).
channelConfigIdYesChannel to test through (from list_channels); its templateKind must match the template's channelKind.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / recipient / description
      Previous value: -"Channel-specific delivery target. Its shape depends on the kind of the chosen channel (list_channels returns each channel's exact `recipientSchema`): ses_email / smtp_email → `{ email, name?, cc?: [{ email, name? }], bcc?: [...], attachments?: [{ filename, content (base64), contentType?, disposition?: \"attachment\"|\"inline\", contentId? }] }`; fcm_push → `{ deviceToken }` OR `{ topic }` (exactly one; Ray keeps no device registry); telegram_bot → `{ chatId }` (numeric id as a string, or \"@channelname\"); twilio_sms → `{ phoneNumber }` (international E.164, e.g. \"+97699112233\"); sendsms_mn → `{ phoneNumber }` (Mongolian 8-digit, e.g. \"99112233\"); slack_webhook, discord_webhook, generic_webhook → `{}` (the destination is part of the channel config)."New value: +"Channel-specific delivery target. Its shape depends on the kind of the chosen channel (list_channels returns each channel's exact `recipientSchema`): ses_email / smtp_email → `{ email, name?, cc?: [{ email, name? }], bcc?: [...], from?: { email?, name? } (per-send sender override; omitted fields fall back to the channel config; email must be on exactly the domain of the config fromAddress, subdomains rejected), replyTo?: [{ email, name? }], headers?: { \"X-Name\": \"value\" } (ASCII, max 15; From/To/Cc/Bcc/Reply-To/Subject etc. and provider controls such as X-SES-*/X-SMTPAPI/X-PM-*/X-Mailgun-* rejected), attachments?: [{ filename, content (base64), contentType?, disposition?: \"attachment\"|\"inline\", contentId? }] }`; fcm_push → `{ deviceToken }` OR `{ topic }` (exactly one; Ray keeps no device registry); telegram_bot → `{ chatId }` (numeric id as a string, or \"@channelname\"); twilio_sms → `{ phoneNumber }` (international E.164, e.g. \"+97699112233\"); sendsms_mn → `{ phoneNumber }` (Mongolian 8-digit, e.g. \"99112233\"); slack_webhook, discord_webhook, generic_webhook → `{}` (the destination is part of the channel config)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / recipient / description
      Previous value: -"Channel-specific delivery target. Its shape depends on the kind of the chosen channel (list_channels returns each channel's exact `recipientSchema`): ses_email / smtp_email → `{ email, name?, cc?: [{ email, name? }], bcc?: [...], attachments?: [{ filename, content (base64), contentType?, disposition?: \"attachment\"|\"inline\", contentId? }] }`; fcm_push → `{ deviceToken }` OR `{ topic }` (exactly one; Ray keeps no device registry); telegram_bot → `{ chatId }` (numeric id as a string, or \"@channelname\"); slack_webhook, discord_webhook, generic_webhook → `{}` (the destination is part of the channel config)."New value: +"Channel-specific delivery target. Its shape depends on the kind of the chosen channel (list_channels returns each channel's exact `recipientSchema`): ses_email / smtp_email → `{ email, name?, cc?: [{ email, name? }], bcc?: [...], attachments?: [{ filename, content (base64), contentType?, disposition?: \"attachment\"|\"inline\", contentId? }] }`; fcm_push → `{ deviceToken }` OR `{ topic }` (exactly one; Ray keeps no device registry); telegram_bot → `{ chatId }` (numeric id as a string, or \"@channelname\"); twilio_sms → `{ phoneNumber }` (international E.164, e.g. \"+97699112233\"); sendsms_mn → `{ phoneNumber }` (Mongolian 8-digit, e.g. \"99112233\"); slack_webhook, discord_webhook, generic_webhook → `{}` (the destination is part of the channel config)."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the send goes through the provider for real, is excluded from the monthly quota but subject to a small daily allowance, never appears in feeds, and returns `{ sendId }` consumable by get_send_status. None of these facts appear in the schema or the annotations, and nothing conflicts with destructiveHint=false/openWorldHint=true.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action first, then the safety caveat and quota/visibility behavior, then the return value and follow-up tool. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description still covers side effects (real delivery), quota impact, feed visibility, return shape, and the natural next call. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and interpret the result.

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 the recipient/templateId/channelConfigId parameters are each documented in detail in the schema itself. The description adds only marginal parameter-level information ('one recipient', 'a recipient the user controls'), so the baseline 3 is right.

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 and resource ('send a real test of a template's PUBLISHED version to one recipient') and pins down scope: exactly one recipient, published version only. This clearly separates it from the bulk-send sibling send_notification without needing 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage context: send to a recipient the user controls because delivery is real. It does not explicitly name the alternative (send_notification) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

All Ray notifications 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