Skip to main content
Glama

spix_email_reply

Send email replies using the Spix MCP server to respond to specific messages with custom content.

Instructions

Reply to an email

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
email_idYesEmail ID to reply to
bodyYesReply body

Implementation Reference

  • The 'create_tool_handler' function is the central handler for all MCP tools. It dispatches to the appropriate backend API endpoint based on the resolved tool schema.
    async def create_tool_handler(
        session: McpSessionContext,
        tool_name: str,
        arguments: dict,
    ) -> list:
        """Execute an MCP tool call by dispatching to the backend API.
    
        This function:
        1. Resolves the tool name to a command schema
        2. Validates session scope (playbook access, channel access)
        3. Builds the API request
        4. Dispatches to the backend
        5. Returns the response as MCP TextContent
    
        Args:
            session: The MCP session context for scope validation.
            tool_name: The MCP tool name (e.g., "spix_playbook_create").
            arguments: The tool arguments from the MCP client.
    
        Returns:
            List containing a single TextContent with the JSON response.
        """
        # Import here to avoid circular imports and handle missing mcp package
        try:
            from mcp.types import TextContent
        except ImportError:
            # Fallback for when mcp is not installed
            class TextContent:  # type: ignore[no-redef]
                def __init__(self, type: str, text: str) -> None:
                    self.type = type
                    self.text = text
    
        # Resolve tool name to schema
        schema = get_schema_by_tool_name(tool_name)
        if not schema:
            return [
                TextContent(
                    type="text",
                    text=orjson.dumps(
                        {"ok": False, "error": {"code": "unknown_tool", "message": f"Unknown tool: {tool_name}"}}
                    ).decode(),
                )
            ]
    
        # Validate tool access (not disabled)
        try:
            session.validate_tool_access(schema.path)
        except Exception as e:
            from spix_mcp.session import McpScopeError
    
            if isinstance(e, McpScopeError):
                return [TextContent(type="text", text=orjson.dumps({"ok": False, "error": e.to_dict()}).decode())]
            raise
    
        # Validate channel access if applicable
        channel = infer_channel_from_tool(schema.path)
        if channel:
            try:
                session.validate_channel_access(channel)
            except Exception as e:
                from spix_mcp.session import McpScopeError
    
                if isinstance(e, McpScopeError):
                    return [TextContent(type="text", text=orjson.dumps({"ok": False, "error": e.to_dict()}).decode())]
                raise
    
        # Handle playbook_id: validate and apply default
        playbook_id = arguments.get("playbook_id")
        try:
            effective_playbook = session.validate_playbook_access(playbook_id)
            if effective_playbook and not playbook_id:
                # Apply default playbook
                arguments["playbook_id"] = effective_playbook
        except Exception as e:
            from spix_mcp.session import McpScopeError
    
            if isinstance(e, McpScopeError):
                return [TextContent(type="text", text=orjson.dumps({"ok": False, "error": e.to_dict()}).decode())]
            raise
    
        # Build endpoint URL with path parameters
        endpoint, remaining_args = build_endpoint_url(schema, arguments)
    
        # Dispatch to backend API
        client = session.client
        method = schema.http_method.lower()
    
        if method == "get":
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.get, endpoint, params=remaining_args if remaining_args else None)
        elif method == "post":
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.post, endpoint, json=remaining_args if remaining_args else None)
        elif method == "patch":
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.patch, endpoint, json=remaining_args if remaining_args else None)
        elif method == "delete":
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.delete, endpoint, params=remaining_args if remaining_args else None)
        else:
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.get, endpoint)
    
        # Build response envelope
        envelope: dict = {"ok": response.ok, "meta": response.meta}
        if response.ok:
            envelope["data"] = response.data
            if response.pagination:
                envelope["pagination"] = response.pagination
            if response.warnings:
                envelope["warnings"] = response.warnings
        else:
            envelope["error"] = response.error
    
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=orjson.dumps(envelope).decode())]
  • The 'email.reply' tool is defined here in the COMMAND_REGISTRY. It maps to the POST endpoint '/email/{email_id}/reply'. The MCP tool name 'spix_email_reply' is dynamically resolved from this path via 'get_schema_by_tool_name'.
        path="email.reply",
        cli_usage="spix email reply <email_id> --body <b>",
        http_method="POST",
        api_endpoint="/email/{email_id}/reply",
        mcp_expose="tool",
        mcp_profile="safe",
        financial=True,
        description="Reply to an email",
        positional_args=[
            CommandParam("email_id", "string", required=True, description="Email ID to reply to"),
        ],
        params=[
            CommandParam("body", "string", required=True, description="Reply body"),
        ],
    ),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'reply to an email' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether replies are sent immediately or queued, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after replying (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), nor does it address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (email_id and body) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the action ('reply') and target resource ('an email'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling email tools like spix_email_send or spix_email_list, which would require explicit differentiation for a score of 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spix_email_send or spix_sms_send, nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or email availability. It simply states the action without context about appropriate scenarios.

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/Spix-HQ/spix-mcp'

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