Hopi

Email link generator

hopi_email_link_generator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a correctly percent-encoded mailto link from to, cc, bcc, subject and body fields, plus a ready to paste HTML anchor snippet. Spaces are encoded as %20 and line breaks as %0D%0A, as the mailto standard expects. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/email-link-generator/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No	Optional cc addresses, separated by commas or semicolons
`to`	Yes	One or more recipient addresses, separated by commas or semicolons
`bcc`	No	Optional bcc addresses, separated by commas or semicolons
`body`	No	Optional body text; line breaks are preserved
`subject`	No	Optional subject line
`linkText`	No	Optional visible text for the HTML anchor (default 'Email us')	Email us

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`html`	No
`summary`	Yes
`warning`	No
`source_url`	Yes	The tool's page on hopi.co.uk (cite or open to check the figure)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 20, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / warning / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "source_url",
+  "summary"
+]
```
First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies encoding rules (spaces as %20, line breaks as %0D%0A) and the dual output (mailto link plus HTML anchor). This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent set expectations.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and outputs, the second adds encoding specifics. There is no fluff, and the source URL is a minor extra that doesn't clutter. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a pure, idempotent function with full parameter documentation, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the core behavior, encoding rules, and output content. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds a general statement about percent-encoding and line-break handling, which applies to fields like subject and body, but it does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 clearly states that the tool builds a correctly percent-encoded mailto link from to, cc, bcc, subject, and body fields, plus an HTML anchor snippet. This is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though the mailto-specific scope makes confusion with tools like hopi_url_encoder unlikely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes the operation itself, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool name. No directional hints are given for choosing this over a generic URL encoder or other generators.

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

All Hopi 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?