Skip to main content
Glama

Send That Email

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send That Email Analyze

send_that_email_analyze
Idempotent

Analyze whether you should send that email. Evaluates passive aggression, regret probability, and provides a recommendation (heavily weighted toward no).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
drunkNoAre you drunk?
contentYesThe email content you're thinking of sending
recipient_typeNoWho you're sending it to
time_since_writingNoMinutes since you wrote the email — longer = more likely no

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
explanationNoExplanation of the analysis and recommendation
recommendationNoWhether you should send the email (heavily weighted toward no)
regret_probabilityNoProbability you will regret sending this email (0-1)
passive_aggression_scoreNoScore indicating level of passive aggression in email (0-100)

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate it is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: it evaluates passive aggression and regret probability and gives a biased recommendation toward 'no'. This exceeds annotation baseline.

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?

Two efficient sentences that convey purpose and key behavioral traits. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown) and full parameter coverage, the description is sufficient for an analysis tool. It covers the main evaluation criteria and recommendation bias.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it analyzes whether to send an email, evaluating passive aggression and regret probability with a biased recommendation. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 when uncertain about sending an email, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives among siblings. The context is clear but guidance is only implied.

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

All Send That Email toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer queries with subtly different guarantees. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) also has fuzzy boundaries. Despite detailed descriptions, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: there are verb_noun names (discover_tools, resolve_entity), noun-based names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and odd constructions like send_that_email_analyze. No clear pattern dominates, making it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a focused server, and most tools are unrelated to the server's apparent email-sending purpose. The count feels bloated and the scope mismatched, though it is not extreme enough for a 1.

Completeness1/5

Given the server name 'Send That Email', the tool surface is severely incomplete: there is only an email analysis tool and no actual sending, drafting, or mailbox management. The bulk of the tools address data lookup and research, leaving the core email workflow entirely unimplemented.

Resources