Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Reply to Email

reply_to_message

Reply to an email message. For shared human-agent mailboxes, first heartbeat composing presence and pass coordination plus a stable idempotency_key; the server atomically rejects stale/double replies. Threading headers are automatic. API: POST /api/emails/{address}/messages/{id}/reply.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoAdditional CC recipients (overrides auto-CC when all=true)
allNoReply-all: auto-CC original To and CC recipients (default: false)
htmlNoHTML reply body
slugYesMailbox slug
textNoPlain text reply body
domainYesMailbox domain
message_idYesID of the message to reply to
coordinationNoCompose lease and reply generation returned by heartbeat_conversation_presence
idempotency_keyNoRequired with coordination; reuse this exact key after timeouts

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / coordination
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Compose lease and reply generation returned by heartbeat_conversation_presence",
+  "properties": {
+    "client_id": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "expected_reply_version": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "lease_id": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "thread_key": {
+      "maxLength": 1024,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "client_id",
+    "lease_id",
+    "expected_reply_version"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required with coordination; reuse this exact key after timeouts",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 8,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the server atomically rejects stale/double replies when coordination and idempotency_key are used, and threading headers are automatic. It also notes the API endpoint. However, it does not discuss error scenarios, permissions, or state mutation beyond the reply itself, so it's informative but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting details in the next two. No redundant phrasing; every clause adds context about coordination, idempotency, or automatic threading.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters and a nested coordination object, the description covers the primary workflow (reply, coordination, idempotency) but omits specifics like recipient selection behavior or when coordination is unnecessary. Given no output schema, return values aren't explained, but the essential operational constraint is stated clearly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why coordination and idempotency_key exist—to prevent stale/double replies atomically—which is not fully obvious from the schema alone. It also clarifies that threading headers are handled automatically, reducing the need for agents to construct them.

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 opens with 'Reply to an email message,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the action. It also notes threading headers are automatic, distinguishing it from send_email or forward_message by focusing on the reply action. The API endpoint reinforces the operation's identity.

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 provides concrete guidance for shared human-agent mailboxes: heartbeat presence, pass coordination, and a stable idempotency_key. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like send_email or forward_message, but the coordination and atomic-rejection details clarify when the tool's special behaviors apply. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

All domani 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.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While most tools have distinct purposes, several clusters overlap significantly (e.g., check_email, check_email_deliverability, get_email_deliverability, get_domain_email_status; buy_domain, buy_aftermarket, acquire_domain). The descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_mailbox, list_domains), but there are notable inconsistencies: destructive actions mix delete/remove/cancel/revoke/unsell, and a few names deviate entirely (search, dns_check, domain_status). The pattern is recognizable but not uniformly applied.

Tool Count1/5

With 122 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a comprehensive domain and email platform, the tool count is overwhelming and will likely hinder agent performance through excessive choice and context bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of domains, DNS, email, marketplace, negotiations, transfers, webhooks, tokens, and billing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for mail rules, no direct domain deletion, and limited mailbox configuration beyond forwarding and credentials, but most lifecycle workflows are supported.

Resources