sendook-mcp

sendook_send_message

Send an email from a Sendook inbox to one or more recipients. Supports plain text and HTML content, CC, BCC, labels, and file attachments.

Instructions

Send an email message from a Sendook inbox.

Sends an email to specified recipients with optional CC, BCC, attachments, and custom labels. Supports both plain text and HTML content.

Args: params: SendMessageInput containing: - inbox_id: Inbox to send from - to: List of recipient email addresses - subject: Email subject line - text: Plain text body (optional) - html: HTML body (optional) - cc: CC recipients (optional) - bcc: BCC recipients (optional) - labels: Custom labels (optional) - attachments: File attachments as base64 (optional)

Returns: str: Confirmation with message ID and details

Examples: - Simple email: to=["user@example.com"], subject="Hello", text="Hi there!" - With attachments: Include attachments list with base64 content

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "sendook_send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies state modification. It adds that the tool sends from an inbox and returns a confirmation, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects like sent item storage.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, bulleted args, return value, and examples. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 most essential aspects (plain text/HTML, attachments, example usage) but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. Given the tool's complexity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for each property (e.g., inbox_id, to, subject). The description adds value by summarizing parameters in a clear list and providing concrete examples of usage, aiding comprehension beyond the schema alone.

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 tool's action: 'Send an email message from a Sendook inbox.' It identifies the resource (email message) and distinguishes from siblings like sendook_reply_to_message and other management tools.

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 such as sendook_reply_to_message. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server