Card Mailer

Fix or remove a recipient

fix_address

DestructiveIdempotent

Corrects or removes a recipient in a saved list by row number. Supplied fields replace stored values; omitted fields remain unchanged. An unreadable row needs name, line1, city, state and zip. Rechecks required fields and US address format, plus USPS verification when configured. Format checks do not confirm deliverability. remove: true excludes the recipient. Lists belonging to paid orders cannot be changed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>",
      "row": "<row>"
    },
    "name": "fix_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`row`	Yes
`zip`	No
`city`	No
`name`	No
`line1`	No	Street address
`line2`	No	Apartment, suite, unit
`state`	No
`remove`	No	Remove this recipient from the mailing.
`list_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`ready`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`list_id`	Yes
`problems`	Yes
`needs_fixing`	Yes
`usps_checked`	No
`corrected_by_usps`	Yes
`skipped_over_limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds context those hints cannot express: supplied fields replace stored values while omitted fields persist, the row is revalidated for required fields and US format, USPS verification runs only when configured, and format checks do not confirm deliverability. The paid-order lockout is a material precondition an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its row-based targeting, then escalation into validation and restrictions. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('An unreadable row needs...', 'remove: true excludes the recipient') but no sentence is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, this covers what the structured fields cannot: mutation semantics, validation pipeline, deliverability caveat, removal path, and authorization boundary. Return values are handled by the output schema, so their absence from the description is correct.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains the replace-vs-omit contract for all optional fields, defines 'remove: true' as exclusion from the mailing, and enumerates the five fields required when a row is unreadable. The list_id parameter gets only an indirect mention via the paid-order restriction, and the schema's 1-based minimum on 'row' is not restated.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb pair (corrects/removes), the resource (a recipient in a saved list), and the addressing mechanism (by row number). Both operating modes are stated up front, and no sibling tool (create_mailing, design_card, import_address_list, quote_mailing, get_mailing_status) overlaps with this operation, so no disambiguation is needed.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition for the heavy path ('An unreadable row needs name, line1, city, state and zip') and a hard exclusion ('Lists belonging to paid orders cannot be changed'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative for adding recipients or for lists that are locked, leaving the agent to infer those routes.

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

All Card Mailer tools Inspect

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

Need Help?