Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Maily MCP Server

Maily MCP Server

by ThanaelFontaine
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

maily_send

Sends an email from a Gmail profile to one or more recipients, with optional CC, and requires user confirmation before the irreversible send.

Instructions

Sends an email FROM a profile (Gmail accounts only). Irreversible action: ask the user for confirmation before calling this tool.

profile : email or name of the sender profile.
to      : recipient(s), separated by commas.

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": {
      "profile": "<profile>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body_text": "<body_text>"
    },
    "name": "maily_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toYes
profileYes
subjectYes
body_textYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key trait: this is an irreversible action requiring user confirmation, plus the Gmail-only constraint on the profile. It does not say what is returned (message id, thread id) or whether sending can fail partially, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility warning, which is exactly the right ordering. The trailing pseudo-schema parameter list partially repeats fields the JSON schema already defines, which is mild waste but not harmful.

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 5-parameter, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves gaps: no mention of cc, no statement of return value or error behavior, and no clarity on body formatting. It covers the essentials (what it does, irreversibility, confirmation) but not enough to be self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'profile' (email or name of the sender profile) and specifies the comma-separated format for 'to', which genuinely adds value, but it never mentions 'cc', 'subject', or 'body_text' (plain text vs HTML is left ambiguous).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sends an email') with the important scoping constraint that the sender profile must be a Gmail account. The action is unmistakable and clearly distinct from the read/list/search siblings such as maily_list_messages and maily_search.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to obtain user confirmation before calling, which is the critical usage rule for this tool. It does not discuss alternatives, but no sibling overlaps with sending, so there is little to disambiguate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools