sommus-laptop

by Jashan-Mshadow

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

compose_email

Opens a pre-filled Gmail draft in the browser for review before sending, with recipient, subject, and body already set.

Instructions

Open a pre-filled Gmail draft in the browser for Jashan to look over. To send, use send_email.

Args:
    to: Recipient address.
    subject: Subject line.
    body: Message text.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "compose_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`body`	Yes
`subject`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is given. The description adds value by explaining the draft is opened in the browser for a human to review and that no sending occurs, which aligns with the non-destructive annotation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args list is compact. The only minor redundancy is that the Args section repeats information already implied by the parameter names in the schema.

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 a simple three-parameter tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: what it does, that it doesn't send, and the meaning of each argument. Minor gaps remain around what happens to the draft afterward.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does enumerate all three params (to, subject, body) with brief glosses, but these largely restate the parameter names ('Recipient address,' 'Subject line,' 'Message text') without adding format or constraint detail.

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 verb and resource: 'Open a pre-filled Gmail draft in the browser.' It clearly conveys the action and result (a reviewable draft), though it does not distinguish itself from the many other sibling tools beyond naming send_email.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the correct alternative with 'To send, use send_email,' clarifying that this tool composes rather than sends. However, no when-not-to-use conditions beyond the send case are given.

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