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

TableJSON 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?: [...], 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\"); 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)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond that: the send goes through the real provider, it is not counted against monthly quota but uses a daily allowance, it never appears in feeds, and it returns a sendId. This fully informs the agent of side effects and result.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct value: operation and auth scope, real-provider warning, quota/feed behavior, and return value. Critical side effects are front-loaded right after the purpose, with no tautology or filler.

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 4-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, real-world side effects, quota implications, feed visibility, and return shape. Combined with the exhaustive schema, nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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?

The input schema already covers all parameters at 100%, including detailed recipient shapes, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by specifying that the PUBLISHED version of the template is sent and that exactly one recipient is targeted, which clarifies how templateId and recipient are interpreted.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb ('Send'), a specific resource ('a template's PUBLISHED version'), and a scope ('to one recipient'), so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It also signals this is a test send, distinguishing it from production send siblings like send_notification without needing to open schemas.

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 description establishes clear usage context: use a recipient the user controls because the send is real, test sends have a separate daily allowance rather than monthly quota, and they never appear in feeds. It does not explicitly name send_notification as the alternative for real production sends, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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