Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Send Email

send_email

Send an email from one of your mailboxes. Specify domain and slug to identify the sender mailbox. Supports text and/or HTML body, CC/BCC, attachments (base64), and threading via In-Reply-To/References. Rate limited to 100 sends per hour per mailbox. API: POST /api/emails/{address}/send.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipient(s)
toYesRecipient email address(es)
bccNoBCC recipient(s)
htmlNoHTML body
slugYesSender mailbox slug, e.g. hello or k7x9m2
textNoPlain text body
domainYesSender mailbox domain, e.g. mysite.com or domani.run
subjectNoEmail subject line
reply_toNoReply-to email address
referencesNoSpace-separated Message-ID chain (for threading)
attachmentsNoFile attachments (max 10, max 40MB total)
in_reply_toNoMessage-ID of the email being replied to (for threading)
idempotency_keyNoUnique key to prevent duplicate sends. If a message with this key was already sent from this mailbox, the original result is returned.
allow_risky_contentNoDeprecated compatibility field. Public HTTPS third-party auth links are allowed with a warning; objective safety blocks cannot be overridden

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / allow_risky_content / description
      Previous value: -"Override verified contextual risks. Never permits local/private links or executable attachments"New value: +"Deprecated compatibility field. Public HTTPS third-party auth links are allowed with a warning; objective safety blocks cannot be overridden"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_risky_content
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Override verified contextual risks. Never permits local/private links or executable attachments",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context: rate limit (100 sends/hour), API endpoint, threading support, and attachment encoding. However, it does not describe the response format or error behavior, which would be useful for a send operation.

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?

The description is concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list key capabilities in a compact manner. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the high parameter count (14), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably complete. It covers the essential purpose, sender identification, supported body types, recipients, attachments, threading, rate limits, and API endpoint. It omits response details and error cases, but remains sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic grouping beyond individual schema descriptions by explaining that domain and slug identify the sender mailbox, and by mentioning base64 for attachments and In-Reply-To/References for threading. This adds value without repeating every schema field.

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 'Send' and the resource 'email from one of your mailboxes', specifying the sender via domain and slug. It also enumerates key features (text/HTML, CC/BCC, attachments, threading) that distinguish it from sibling tools like reply_to_message or forward_message.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and its capabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reply_to_message or forward_message. The context is clear for sending a new email, but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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