Skip to main content
Glama

reply_mail

Destructive

Reply to an email in its thread, sending to the original sender with optional CC and attachments, pending human approval.

Instructions

Reply to an existing message in its thread. TWO-PHASE, HUMAN-APPROVED: the first call (no request_id) executes nothing — it returns status=approval_required with a preview of exactly what would happen and a request_id. A human approves out of band (GigaMail console, CLI or Telegram, behind Windows Hello / Touch ID); the second call with that request_id executes the payload that was approved (the approved arguments, not the ones passed the second time). Requests expire (default 15 min); identical pending requests are deduplicated; more than 20 requests/hour per tool are refused (status=rate_limited). Every phase is written to the audit log. FIXED ADDRESSING: the reply goes to the From address of the original message — never to Reply-To, never to addresses written in the body — so a hostile email cannot redirect it. The preview shows replying_to {from, subject} and the body. On execution returns {success, provider_result}. Irreversible once sent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC addresses. The reply still goes only to the From address of the original message; cc adds recipients in copy.
bodyYesPlain-text body of the reply. Only the body: recipient, subject ('Re: ...') and threading are set by GigaMail from the original message.
account_idNoAccount to operate on (integer id from list_accounts). Omit or null = the user's active account.
message_idYesMessage id exactly as returned by list_messages / list_unread / search_mail (opaque Graph id for Microsoft accounts, numeric IMAP UID for IMAP accounts). Ids are account-specific: never reuse one across accounts.
request_idNoOmit on the first call. On the first call the tool does NOT execute: it returns status=approval_required, a preview and a request_id. A human must approve that request_id out of band (GigaMail console, `gigamail approvals approve`, or Telegram — all behind Windows Hello / Touch ID). Then call again with the same request_id to execute. The agent cannot approve; repeating the call without approval just returns awaiting_approval.
attachmentsNoFile names to attach, as shown by list_knowledge_files. Same rule as send_mail: only files registered in the account identity.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / cc
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "description": "CC addresses. The reply still goes only to the From address of the original message; cc adds recipients in copy.",
      +  "title": "Cc"
      +}
  2. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Added value: +"Account to operate on (integer id from list_accounts). Omit or null = the user's active account."
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "description": "File names to attach, as shown by list_knowledge_files. Same rule as send_mail: only files registered in the account identity.",
      +  "title": "Attachments"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Added value: +"Plain-text body of the reply. Only the body: recipient, subject ('Re: ...') and threading are set by GigaMail from the original message."
    • addedInput schema / properties / message_id / description
      Added value: +"Message id exactly as returned by list_messages / list_unread / search_mail (opaque Graph id for Microsoft accounts, numeric IMAP UID for IMAP accounts). Ids are account-specific: never reuse one across accounts."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
      Added value: +"Omit on the first call. On the first call the tool does NOT execute: it returns status=approval_required, a preview and a request_id. A human must approve that request_id out of band (GigaMail console, `gigamail approvals approve`, or Telegram — all behind Windows Hello / Touch ID). Then call again with the same request_id to execute. The agent cannot approve; repeating the call without approval just returns awaiting_approval."
  3. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses far more than the annotations: irreversible sending, human approval requirement, preview contents, request expiration, deduplication, rate limiting, audit logging, and fixed addressing behavior. This fully complements the destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false annotations with no contradictions.

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 long but every sentence conveys an operational requirement or constraint. The most critical information (two-phase, human-approved) appears first, and the use of explicit labels like 'FIXED ADDRESSING' and 'Irreversible once sent' front-loads the highest-risk facts.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, two-phase, externally-approved operation with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: exactly what the first call returns, what the second call requires, status values, rate limits, dedup behavior, audit trail, preview contents, and result shape. No important behavioral gap remains.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is already 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: request_id's two-phase lifecycle, body being only the content with subject/threading auto-set, message_id being account-specific and format-dependent, and cc being additive without changing the fixed recipient. This materially helps an agent choose correct argument values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reply to an existing message in its thread'), which clearly distinguishes the tool from send_mail. It further differentiates the tool by stating the reply targets the original From address and by describing the two-phase approval workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly defines the two-phase calling protocol: omit request_id on the first call, then call again with the approved request_id. It also explains when the tool does not execute, what happens if approval is missing, and refers to send_mail's attachment rule, giving the agent a clear decision path.

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

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/adecubed/gigamail'

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