Skip to main content
Glama

Enqueue Email

enqueue_email
Destructive

Enqueue an email to be sent.

Consentless template emails are sent immediately. Emails to recipients who have already granted consent are sent right away. For every other recipient the email is queued, and a consent request is sent now if the recipient has none yet. A queued email is sent once its recipient has granted consent and consent state is next refreshed: by 'send_pending_emails', or by a later call to another tool that sends email. Nothing is sent while the server is idle.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "To": {
        "Addresses": [
          {
            "Name": "Ada",
            "Address": "ada@example.com"
          }
        ]
      },
      "Body": {
        "Text": "Hello Ada,"
      },
      "From": {
        "Name": "Acme",
        "Address": "noreply@acme.com"
      },
      "Subject": "Welcome"
    },
    "name": "enqueue_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ToYesRecipients.
BodyYesEmail body.
FromNoSender address: an existing sender identity on a verified domain. When omitted or invalid, nothing is sent and the result names how to fix it, with up to three valid sender identities.
SubjectYesSubject of the email.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ResultYesHow many emails were queued, and of those how many were released for sending now, wait for recipient consent, or are not sent because the recipient denied consent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / From / properties / Address / description
      Added value: +"Email address, e.g. ada@example.com."
    • addedInput schema / properties / From / properties / Name / description
      Added value: +"Optional display name shown with the address, e.g. Ada Lovelace."
    • addedInput schema / properties / To / properties / Addresses / items / properties / Address / description
      Added value: +"Email address, e.g. ada@example.com."
    • addedInput schema / properties / To / properties / Addresses / items / properties / Name / description
      Added value: +"Optional display name shown with the address, e.g. Ada Lovelace."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / Result / description
      Previous value: -"Result of the operation."New value: +"How many emails were queued, and of those how many were released for sending now, wait for recipient consent, or are not sent because the recipient denied consent."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent but say nothing about what actually happens on a call. The description discloses the crucial side effect that a consent request email may be dispatched to the recipient, the split between immediate and deferred delivery, and the fact that queued mail only drains on a subsequent non-idle call. That is exactly the behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the delivery rules in a logical immediate-then-queued order, ending with the idle-server caveat. Slightly redundant across the first two sentences (both establish 'sent right away' for different recipient classes), and the 'Consentless template emails' opening risks colliding with the sibling tool of the same concept.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the schema documents all four parameters. What remains — timing, queueing, automatic consent requests, and the drain trigger — is fully covered. Only a note on duplicate sends given idempotentHint=false would improve it further.

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%, including nested Address/Body/From details and a maxProperties:1 constraint, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema; the one behavior worth mentioning that it omits is what happens when 'To' uses Groups rather than Addresses (per-member queueing).

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Enqueue an email to be sent') and then defines the actual delivery semantics, which is the real distinguishing feature. It doesn't explicitly separate itself from the closest siblings 'enqueue_template_email' and 'send_consentless_email' — in fact the phrase 'Consentless template emails are sent immediately' invokes concepts those siblings own, which could momentarily confuse routing.

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?

It clarifies the operational context well: consentless and already-consented recipients get immediate delivery, everyone else is queued, and a consent request fires automatically if needed. It also names 'send_pending_emails' as the flush mechanism, giving the agent a concrete follow-up action. It stops short of stating when to choose this over 'enqueue_template_email' or 'send_consentless_email'.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.