Skip to main content
Glama

reply-mail-message

Destructive

Reply to an email message sender using JSON or MIME format. Preserves HTML formatting and saves the reply in the Sent Items folder or creates a draft for later sending.

Instructions

Reply to the sender of a message using either JSON or MIME format. When using JSON format:

  • Specify either a comment or the body property of the message parameter. Specifying both will return an HTTP 400 Bad Request error.

  • If the original message specifies a recipient in the replyTo property, per Internet Message Format (RFC 2822), send the reply to the recipients in replyTo and not the recipient in the from property. When using MIME format:

  • Provide the applicable Internet message headers and the MIME content, all encoded in base64 format in the request body.

  • Add any attachments and S/MIME properties to the MIME content. This method saves the message in the Sent Items folder. Alternatively, create a draft to reply to an existing message and send it later.

💡 TIP: Reply to an email preserving full HTML formatting. The 'comment' field is your reply text. Do NOT reconstruct the email manually.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
messageIdYesPath parameter: messageId
includeHeadersNoInclude response headers (including ETag) in the response metadata
excludeResponseNoExclude the full response body and only return success or failure indication
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: error on conflicting parameters, replyTo handling, saving in Sent Items, and the draft alternative. Annotations already indicate mutation (not read-only) and destructiveness, and the description adds contextual behavioral details without contradiction.

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 description is structured with bullet points and clear sections for JSON and MIME formats. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. A few sentences could be trimmed without losing clarity, but overall it is efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers error conditions, format choices, and behavioral details. However, since there is no output schema, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., the sent message). This is a notable gap for a complex tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 75% schema coverage, the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds critical semantics: exclusivity of comment vs body, replyTo behavior, base64 encoding for MIME, and a tip clarifying the 'comment' field meaning. This goes beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (reply) and resource (message), specifying the two formats (JSON and MIME). It distinguishes from sibling 'reply-all-mail-message' by targeting the sender only.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use JSON vs MIME, constraints on body vs comment, and the alternative of creating a draft. It implicitly tells when not to use by highlighting error conditions, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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/Softeria/ms-365-mcp-server'

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