shiply

Forward an inbox message to a new recipient

forward_thread

Forward a message from a thread (default: the most recent message) to a NEW recipient with an optional intro note. Body is composed as note + standard '---------- Forwarded message ----------' quote of the original. Goes from the thread's existing shiply alias so replies still route through the inbox. Subject defaults to 'Fwd: '.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	new recipient email address
`note`	No	intro note prepended above the forwarded quote
`subject`	No	subject; defaults to 'Fwd: <original>'
`threadId`	Yes	thread id from list_inbox to forward from
`messageId`	No	specific message to forward (default: most recent)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

Changed6 schema fields changedJun 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / messageId / description

Added value: +"specific message to forward (default: most recent)"

addedInput schema / properties / note / description

Added value: +"intro note prepended above the forwarded quote"

addedInput schema / properties / subject / description

Added value: +"subject; defaults to 'Fwd: <original>'"

addedInput schema / properties / threadId / description

Added value: +"thread id from list_inbox to forward from"

addedInput schema / properties / to / description
```
Added value: +"new recipient email address"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description details body composition, alias usage, subject default, and optional note, adding significant behavioral context beyond the simple annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint). 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences front-load key information without waste. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the output schema exists and parameters are well-described, the description covers forwarding behavior, body format, alias routing, and defaults completely.

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

Parameters5/5

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

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the tool description adds rich context like default message selection and subject prefix.

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 description clearly states the verb 'forward', the resource 'a message from a thread', and specifies default behavior (most recent message). It distinctly separates from siblings like send_email or reply_to_thread.

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 description implies when to use (forward to a new recipient, using the thread's alias) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools like send_email or reply_to_thread.

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

All shiply tools Inspect

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.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., add_domain, add_subdomain, add_custom_domain, add_sending_domain) or similar names like check_domain and check_custom_domain, which can confuse an agent. While descriptions help, the sheer number of closely related tools makes it difficult to consistently select the correct one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are exceptions like 'read_thread' (instead of get_thread) and 'mark_thread_read' (verb_noun_verb). Prefixes like 'data_' are used inconsistently with other tools, but overall the naming is still readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 103 tools, the server is extremely bloated. Even for a comprehensive platform, this count overwhelms any agent and makes the tool surface difficult to navigate. Many tools could be merged or are too granular.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers a wide range of operations across sites, domains, email, marketplace, projects, contracts, and functions. While some updates (e.g., general contract editing) are missing, the surface is mostly comprehensive for the domain.

Resources

Need Help?