Ragently CRM

Mailconcept aanleveren

crm_mail_concept

Destructive

Lever een mailconcept voor een lead aan. Geen handtekening of afsluitgroet (voegt het systeem toe); stap 2 (follow-up) krijgt automatisch "Re: ...". Elk cijfer met bron in bronnen; na een bounce nieuw_adres meegeven.

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>",
      "stap": "<stap>",
      "onderwerp": "<onderwerp>",
      "tekst": "<tekst>"
    },
    "name": "crm_mail_concept"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stap`	Yes	1 = eerste mail, 2 = follow-up.
`klaar`	No	true bij je laatste aanroep: sluit de ronde.
`tekst`	Yes	Mailtekst, zonder handtekening of afsluitgroet.
`bronnen`	No	Eén bron per genoemd cijfer of concrete claim.
`onderwerp`	Yes	Onderwerp van de mail (genegeerd bij stap 2).
`contact_id`	Yes	Contact-id van de lead.
`nieuw_adres`	No	Alleen na een bounce: het nieuwe e-mailadres van dit contact.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the system appends the signature and closing, step 2 is auto-prefixed with 'Re: ...', and a bounced contact requires nieuw_adres. It does not explain why the call is destructive (whether the mail is actually sent or only stored as a draft), which is the one gap an agent would care about.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the content constraints. Every clause carries a rule the agent would otherwise get wrong; the telegraphic phrasing ('Elk cijfer met bron in `bronnen`') is terse but not wasteful.

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-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the rules that matter: signature handling, follow-up subject behavior, sourcing, and bounce recovery. What is missing is the outcome of the call (sent vs. queued as draft) and any failure behavior, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does add meaning beyond the schema for a few fields: bronnen must carry one source per number or concrete claim, nieuw_adres applies only after a bounce, and onderwerp is ignored at step 2. That is useful but partial, and the schema already documents most of it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lever een mailconcept voor een lead aan', which tells an agent exactly what is produced and for whom. It does not name the adjacent siblings (crm_mail_stijl, crm_mail_te_schrijven), so the boundary with those tools must be inferred, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through content rules (no signature, step 2 gets 'Re:', sources required, new address after a bounce) rather than stated as when-to-use versus alternatives. There is no explicit statement of when this tool should be chosen over crm_mail_te_schrijven or crm_mail_stijl, nor any prerequisite about the lead already existing.

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

All Ragently CRM 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?