maeil
Server Details
Invite someone to a calendar event by phone number and get their real email back when they accept.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: send_calendar_invite initiates an invitation, and get_invite_status retrieves its status. No overlap or confusion possible.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'send_calendar_invite' and 'get_invite_status'. The pattern is clear and predictable.
With only two tools, the set is appropriately scoped for a simple calendar invite workflow. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without unnecessary bloat.
The tools cover the core workflow of sending an invite and checking its status. Missing operations like canceling or updating an invite are minor gaps that do not significantly impede the primary use case.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_invite_statusAInspect
Check whether a sent invite has been accepted or declined, and retrieve the recipient's revealed email once they have accepted. Returns one of: sent, accepted, declined, failed. The revealed email is null until the recipient accepts and provides it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invite_id | Yes | The invite_id returned by send_calendar_invite. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the check is non-mutating, lists all possible statuses, and explains that the revealed email is conditional on acceptance. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then providing specific details on return values and conditional email. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description effectively describes the response (status string and optional email). It explains the condition for the email appearing. The tool is simple, and the description is fully sufficient for an agent to understand invocation and expected output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter invite_id. The description adds valuable context that the invite_id originates from send_calendar_invite, which is helpful beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 with extra context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks invite status and retrieves revealed email upon acceptance. It enumerates possible return values (sent, accepted, declined, failed) and explains the email is null until accepted. This distinguishes it from the sibling send_calendar_invite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates this tool is used after sending an invite, as it refers to 'sent invite' and mentions the invite_id from send_calendar_invite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though only one sibling exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
send_calendar_inviteAInspect
Invite a person to a calendar event using only their phone number. They receive the invite as a text message; if they accept, their real email address is returned to the organizer (retrieve it with get_invite_status, or have it POSTed to your callback_url). US and Canada phone numbers only. You must attest that you have the recipient's consent to contact them about this event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | Optional event end, same formats as start. | |
| phone | Yes | Recipient phone number, US/Canada. Accepts +15551234567, 15551234567, 5551234567, or (555) 123-4567. | |
| start | Yes | Event start. ISO 8601 datetime (e.g. 2026-06-15T14:00:00Z) or a date (2026-06-15) for an all-day event. | |
| title | Yes | Event title. Shown in the text message and on the accept page. | |
| location | No | Optional location (e.g. "Phone", an address, or a meeting link). | |
| organizer | Yes | Organizer email. The RSVP and the recipient's revealed email are delivered to this address. | |
| description | No | Optional event description / notes. | |
| callback_url | No | Optional public https URL. maeil POSTs the recipient's response (and email) here when they accept or decline. | |
| consent_attestation | Yes | REQUIRED. A short statement of the basis on which you are permitted to text this person about this event (e.g. "client booked by phone on 6/1", "met at conference and exchanged numbers"). This is the legal basis for the message; sends without it are refused. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the workflow: the recipient receives a text message, and if they accept, their email is returned and can be retrieved via get_invite_status or POSTed to callback_url. It also states the consent attestation requirement. However, it does not cover error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the phone number is invalid or the recipient declines (beyond mention of callback).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph of three sentences covering purpose, constraints, workflow, and legal requirement. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers most important aspects (required fields, formats, consent, callback, sibling tool). However, it lacks information on immediate return value, error scenarios, and whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous. Some gaps remain for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds some context (e.g., consent_attestation as legal basis, how title is shown) but does not significantly expand on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already describes all parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Invite a person to a calendar event using only their phone number.' It specifies the action (invite), resource (person to calendar event), and method (via phone number). The description distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_invite_status', which retrieves status rather than sending invites.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (inviting via phone number) and constraints (US and Canada only, consent attestation required). It also references the sibling tool for retrieving status. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if email is available) or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!