Skip to main content
Glama
Guascoign

Mail Notification MCP

by Guascoign

send_custom_email

Send fully configurable email messages with recipients, CC/BCC, subject, plain-text or HTML body, attachments, and custom SMTP settings.

Instructions

Send a custom email with full configuration options.

    Args:
        email: Email message details including:
            - to: Recipient email address(es) (string or list)
            - cc: CC email address(es) (optional, string or list)
            - bcc: BCC email address(es) (optional, string or list)
            - subject: Email subject
            - text: Plain text email body (optional)
            - html: HTML email body (optional)
            - attachments: List of attachments (optional), each with:
                - path: Local file path to attach (preferred)
                - content: Base64-encoded file content (alternative to path)
                - filename: Override filename (auto-derived from path if omitted)
                - mime_type: MIME type override (optional)
        smtp_config: Optional SMTP configuration override with:
            - host: SMTP server hostname
            - port: SMTP server port
            - secure: Use SSL/TLS
            - username: Auth username
            - password: Auth password
            - from_email: Sender email address

    Returns:
        Success message or error message
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes
smtp_configNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the bare action by enumerating SMTP authentication fields, optional configuration, and the return outcome of 'Success message or error message'. It does not mention side effects like irreversible sending or failure conditions in detail, but it does describe core behavior.

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 long but every part is necessary for a tool with two nested objects and many optional fields. The one-line summary is front-loaded and the rest is a structured parameter breakdown with no filler. The format is scan-friendly for an agent.

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?

For a tool with this complexity, the description provides a complete operational picture: what the email object can contain, what the SMTP override accepts, and what return behavior to expect. It compensates for the uninformative schema and the absence of annotations effectively.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and both parameters are free-form additionalProperties objects, so the description is essential. It fully compensates by explaining all expected email fields, attachment subfields, and every smtp_config field, while clarifying which options are optional and where defaults apply.

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 ('Send a custom email') and a resource/scope ('with full configuration options'). This makes the tool distinct from the simpler sibling send_simple_email, but it does not explicitly draw the contrast or name alternatives in the description text.

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 strongly implies use when full configuration is needed (cc, bcc, attachments, HTML body, SMTP override) but it does not state 'use this instead of send_simple_email when...' or mention any exclusion criteria. Usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Guascoign/Mail_MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server