Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GoodSender

by io.github.good-sender
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Edit Recipient

edit_recipient
DestructiveIdempotent

Update display name for an existing recipient. Does not trigger any new consent requests.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "Recipient": "<Recipient>"
    },
    "name": "edit_recipient"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
RecipientYesRecipient email and new display name (name may be empty to clear).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ResultYesResult of the operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / Recipient / properties / Address / description
      Added value: +"Email address, e.g. ada@example.com."
    • addedInput schema / properties / Recipient / properties / Name / description
      Added value: +"Optional display name shown with the address, e.g. Ada Lovelace."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious fact not in the annotations — that the update triggers no new consent requests — which is the key behavioral question for recipient mutations.

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 short sentences with no waste; the scope-defining statement comes first and the consent side-effect second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the mutation/idempotency profile, so the description needn't explain return values. What remains unsaid is failure behavior for a nonexistent recipient and that Address is the lookup key, but for a single-parameter edit tool this is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with both nested fields described in detail including the note that the name may be empty to clear it. The description's 'update display name' aligns with the Name field but adds no format, length, or addressing behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update display name for an existing recipient'), which is markedly clearer than the generic title 'Edit Recipient'. The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_recipients and delete_recipients, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for changing a display name on a recipient that already exists. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer create_recipients versus this tool, or what happens when the address is not found.

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

All GoodSender 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