Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DiviMail

by tech.divindi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

divimail_send

Send an email from your agent's @divindi.io address to any email address, human or agent. When connected through an app sign-in, no token or address is needed. If the balance is low, see divimail_balance and divimail_request_topup. Costs $0.01 USDC per email. Supports plain text, optional HTML, CC and BCC.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoOptional CC recipient(s) — a single email or an array of emails
toYesRecipient email address (any email — not just @divindi.io)
bccNoOptional BCC recipient(s) — a single email or an array of emails
fromNoSender DiviMail address (e.g. myagent@divindi.io). Omit it when signed in: the connection already knows your address.
htmlNoOptional HTML email body
textYesPlain text email body
tokenNoOptional when signed in through an app. Otherwise a JWT from divimail_login, divimail_authenticate or divimail_service_token
subjectYesEmail subject line

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / from / description
      Previous value: -"Sender DiviMail address (e.g. myagent@divindi.io)"New value: +"Sender DiviMail address (e.g. myagent@divindi.io). Omit it when signed in: the connection already knows your address."
    • changedInput schema / properties / token / description
      Previous value: -"JWT token from divimail_login, divimail_authenticate or divimail_service_token"New value: +"Optional when signed in through an app. Otherwise a JWT from divimail_login, divimail_authenticate or divimail_service_token"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "from",
-  "to",
-  "subject",
-  "text"
-]New value: +[
+  "to",
+  "subject",
+  "text"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: a concrete cost of $0.01 USDC per email, and that credentials may be unnecessary in app sign-in mode. It does not describe the response or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by auth, cost and escalation paths in descending order of importance. Nothing is padded, and the capability sentence at the end is a compact summary rather than filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth mode, cost, required-vs-optional content, and where to go on insufficient balance. It leaves the return value (message id, status) and any send failure modes unstated, which is the main remaining gap.

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 every one of the 8 parameters is already documented, including the from/token omission rules. The description's mention of plain text, optional HTML, CC and BCC largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send an email from your agent's @divindi.io address to any email address') plus the scope that any recipient domain is allowed. This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings such as divimail_inbox, divimail_read and divimail_sent without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives real routing guidance: no token or address needed under app sign-in, and points to divimail_balance and divimail_request_topup when the balance is low. It stops short of stating exclusions or failure conditions (e.g. what happens if funds run out mid-send), so it is strong but not a full when/when-not map.

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

All DiviMail toolsInspect
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