Skip to main content
Glama

postari

by io.github.wilmendezofficial
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

send_transactional_email

Envía un correo transaccional 1-a-1 (cotización, recibo, bienvenida, recordatorio) a UNA dirección, usando una plantilla y variables. Síncrono. Requiere scope send.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectNoAsunto (opcional si la plantilla lo trae).
to_emailYesCorreo del destinatario.
from_nameNoNombre del remitente (opcional).
html_bodyNoHTML libre (opcional, alternativa a template_id).
variablesNoVariables mustache {{var}} para rellenar la plantilla. Ej: {"first_name":"María"}.
template_idNoID de la plantilla en Postari (opcional si mandas subject+html_body).
confirm_sendNoObligatorio en true para enviar de verdad (acción sensible: además la cuenta debe tener habilitados los envíos por agente). Sin él no se envía nada.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_send
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Obligatorio en true para enviar de verdad (acción sensible: además la cuenta debe tener habilitados los envíos por agente). Sin él no se envía nada.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the load, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: 'Síncrono' and 'Requiere scope `send`'. The sensitive confirm_send gate and its account prerequisite are covered in the schema rather than the description. It still omits return/idempotency behavior, but the scope and sync disclosure is genuinely useful context.

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?

Three short clauses, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and followed by scope and sync behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 7-param send tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, synchronicity, scope, and recipient cardinality. What is missing is only post-call information (message id/status), which is minor given the safety gate is fully documented in the schema.

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 every parameter is already documented in Spanish with examples (mustache variables, template vs html_body, confirm_send). The description only conceptually references template and variables, adding nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (sends a transactional email) with tight scope: '1-a-1 ... a UNA dirección, usando una plantilla y variables'. This cleanly separates it from the bulk-send siblings like launch_campaign and trigger_flow, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

The parenthetical examples (quote, receipt, welcome, reminder) and '1-a-1 a UNA dirección' give clear context for when this applies versus campaign/flow tools. It never explicitly names an alternative or a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All postari 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