MCP Agent Mail

macro_contact_handshake

Request contact permissions between coding agents, optionally auto-approve access, and send a welcome message to start collaboration.

Instructions

Request contact permissions and optionally auto-approve plus send a welcome message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No
`format`	No
`reason`	No
`target`	No
`program`	No
`to_agent`	No
`requester`	No
`thread_id`	No
`agent_name`	No
`to_project`	No
`auto_accept`	No
`project_key`	Yes
`ttl_seconds`	No
`welcome_body`	No
`welcome_subject`	No
`task_description`	No
`register_if_missing`	No
`target_registration_token`	No
`requester_registration_token`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.4Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the main actions (request, auto-approve, welcome message) but omits critical side effects: what auto-approval entails, how registration works, token requirements, TTL behavior, and whether the operation is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence, but for a 19-parameter macro it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to provide the structural detail needed to navigate the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the high complexity (19 parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions), the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter meanings, and behavioral details, leaving the agent unable to reliably invoke the tool despite the presence of an output schema.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 19 parameters. The description only loosely hints at auto_accept and welcome_subject/welcome_body, leaving the vast majority of parameters (e.g., ttl_seconds, register_if_missing, target_registration_token) completely undocumented for the agent.

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 states a specific action: request contact permissions, optionally auto-approve, and send a welcome message. This clearly identifies the macro's combined purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like request_contact or respond_contact, leaving the agent to infer why the macro is preferable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as request_contact or respond_contact. The description implies a handshake flow but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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