Skip to main content
Glama

EmailMCP

by io.setip
OverviewAdmin

send_email

Send an email with text or HTML content

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoArray of CC recipient email addresses
toYesArray of recipient email addresses
bccNoArray of BCC recipient email addresses
fromNoPersonal account address to send from. If set and matching account has personal SMTP/IMAP credentials (via set_personal_email_credentials), sends via that account and IMAP-APPENDs a copy to its Sent folder. If exactly one personal account exists and from is omitted, it is used. If multiple personal accounts exist and from is omitted, the call errors and lists choices.
htmlNoHTML content of the email
textYesPlain text content of the email
subjectYesEmail subject line
providerNoSend via a specific provider instead of the default (e.g. smtp, mailgun, sendgrid, ses, gmail, resend). Requires that provider's credentials in env.
bulk_modeNoRequired when sending to multiple recipients. "individual": sends a separate email to each recipient (safest). "bcc": puts first recipient in TO:, rest in BCC. "to": puts all in TO: (exposes addresses — use only when intended, e.g. team threads).
attachmentsNoArray of file attachments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / from
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Personal account address to send from. If set and matching account has personal SMTP/IMAP credentials (via set_personal_email_credentials), sends via that account and IMAP-APPENDs a copy to its Sent folder. If exactly one personal account exists and from is omitted, it is used. If multiple personal accounts exist and from is omitted, the call errors and lists choices.",
+  "optional": true,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only states that it sends an email, without disclosing side effects like provider selection, personal account behavior, or delivery limitations. Since no annotations are provided, the description fails to reveal behavioral details, though some are covered in parameter descriptions.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the basic function without extra words. However, it omits useful context about the tool's capabilities, making it efficient but under-informative.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a minimal overview. The schema's parameter descriptions compensate for some missing context, but the description itself does not cover behavioral or usage aspects, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including detailed explanations for 'from', 'bulk_mode', and 'attachments'. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but per baseline, high schema coverage earns a 3.

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 identifies the verb 'send' and resource 'email', and specifies content types 'text or HTML'. It distinguishes from siblings like send_template_email by its content-type emphasis, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus send_template_email or other email tools. The description lacks any context about use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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

All EmailMCP 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.

Resources