A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceEnables AI assistants to read, search, and manage email via IMAP, and send emails with attachments via SMTP, using natural language commands.
1,251
MIT
Send Email
Server Details
Send emails from natural language prompts.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- hal9ai/mcp.build
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Available Tools
1 toolchatSend EmailBInspect
Send emails via Resend using natural language prompts
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | No | Continue an existing conversation. Omit to start a new one; the reply includes the id. | |
| message | Yes | The message to send to the agent. |
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a side-effecting send action, but omits critical context: emails are sent irrreversibly, an AI agent interprets the prompt, and conversations can be continued via chat_id. The description adds only the barest 'send' fact.
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?
The description is one sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action, provider, and method. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a side-effecting agentic email sender with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the conversation mechanism (chat_id), what the response contains, or any safety considerations. An agent would not know to expect a conversation id or that the tool may continue previous exchanges.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not discuss parameters, but the schema independently documents both 'message' and 'chat_id'. No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond the schema.
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 description states a specific verb ('send'), a clear resource ('emails via Resend'), and the interaction mode ('natural language prompts'). The title reinforces the action. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
The description implies usage: users will describe an email in natural language. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and with no sibling tools there are no alternatives to distinguish. Prerequisites or conditions (e.g., having a Resend account, confirming recipients) are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Give an AI agent its own email address: send, reply, read, and wait for mail.
Connect any mailbox to Claude, ChatGPT & AI: read, send, reply, schedule & search emails.
Email infrastructure for AI agents — send, receive, search, and reply to email over MCP.
Email for AI agents: send, read replies as threads, run campaigns, with per-key limits.
451
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables natural language email operations (send, search, read, manage) via IMAP/SMTP, with support for attachments, multiple mailboxes, and secure configuration.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables sending emails via Gmail API, checking thread replies, and listing sent emails, all logged locally in SQLite.
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to manage Gmail through natural language, including sending, reading, searching, labeling emails, managing attachments, and performing thread operations.3MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool available, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The single 'chat' tool is trivially distinct within the server.
Naming Consistency4/5
A single tool cannot exhibit inconsistent naming patterns, so consistency is inherently high. However, the name 'chat' is quite generic and not descriptive of email sending, which slightly lowers the score from perfect.
Tool Count3/5
A server with only one tool is on the thin side, but the narrow purpose of simply sending emails via natural language justifies a minimal surface. Still, it feels borderline as agents might lack additional workflow support.
Completeness4/5
The core action of sending an email is fully covered, and there are no dead ends for that primary use case. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to track sent emails or manage multiple recipients explicitly, but these are workable for simple scenarios.