Compose and send a new email with recipients, subject, body, CC/BCC, and optional alias account. Preview first, then confirm with the returned token to deliver.
Send a new email. Two-step: first call returns a preview + confirm_token; call again with it to send.
account is an email or alias.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| confirm_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: sending is gated behind a preview + confirm_token round trip, so the first call is effectively non-destructive. It stops short of stating that the second call is irreversible, what the preview contains, or whether account/permission prerequisites exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the flow, with zero filler. It is slightly too terse in the phrase "call again with it," which leaves the agent to infer that the same payload plus the token is required.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an irreversible mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the crucial confirm-token mechanism, which is the main failure mode. It still omits permission/authentication expectations, error behavior, and what the preview returns, leaving meaningful gaps for a 7-parameter write tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only explains `account` (email or alias) and partially explains `confirm_token` via "call again with it"; to/cc/bcc/subject/body are left to name inference, and the description does not clarify that the second call must repeat the original arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: "Send a new email." That is enough to distinguish it from sibling draft/reply tools such as create_draft, send_draft, and reply_to_email, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The two-step preview/confirm flow is real usage guidance that an agent must follow to avoid an accidental send. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over send_draft, create_draft, or reply_to_email, and no exclusions or preconditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.