MCP Resume & Email Assistant

Send Email

sendEmail

Send email notifications with customizable recipient, subject, and body for resume and communication tasks.

Instructions

Send an email notification with customizable recipient, subject, and body

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": "sendEmail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient email address
`body`	Yes	Email body content
`subject`	Yes	Email subject

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Send an email notification' without disclosing side effects (e.g., non-idempotent), potential failures, rate limits, or whether it actually dispatches or queues the email. This is insufficient 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with 12 words, but it lacks detail. It is concise but under-informative; a slightly longer description with key constraints would be more helpful without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

For a simple tool with three required parameters, the description is partially complete. However, it omits important details like validation, error handling, and behavior (e.g., immediate send vs. queued). The lack of output schema also reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive field names and descriptions (e.g., 'Recipient email address'). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond stating the parameters are customizable, which is already implied by 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 it sends an email notification with customizable recipient, subject, and body. It explicitly names the resource (email) and action (send), and the sibling tools (parseResume, queryResume) are for different tasks, so no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use or not use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., valid email address), alternatives, or context (e.g., only for notifications). The sibling tools are unrelated, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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

Deploy Server