Skip to main content
Glama
camelmailer

CamelMailer MCP Server

Official
by camelmailer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

send_email

Destructive

Send transactional email to one or more recipients with HTML or plain-text bodies, CC/BCC, and idempotency keys to prevent duplicate sends.

Instructions

Send a transactional email through CamelMailer. Provide html_body and/or text_body. Queues one message per recipient and returns their ids.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients
toYesRecipient email addresses
bccNoBCC recipients
tagNoFree-form tag for filtering and stats
fromYesSender address — must belong to a verified sending domain of the server
streamNoMessage-stream permalink; defaults to the server's default stream
subjectNoMessage subject
reply_toNoReply-To addresses
html_bodyNoHTML body
text_bodyNoPlain-text body
idempotency_keyNoMakes the send replayable: the same key with the same body returns the first result instead of sending twice. Reusing it for a different body is refused with InvalidIdempotentRequest.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Makes the send replayable: the same key with the same body returns the first result instead of sending twice. Reusing it for a different body is refused with InvalidIdempotentRequest.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal openWorldHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it queues messages, processes one per recipient, and returns ids. This gives the agent a clearer picture of side effects and what to expect after invocation.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core purpose, input expectations, and outcome. There is no filler, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With the schema covering all parameters and annotations providing the high-level behavioral hints, the description supplies the essential missing context: transactional nature, queueing behavior, and per-recipient result ids. It does not detail response structure or idempotency behavior, but the description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that html_body and/or text_body can be provided and that the tool queues one message per recipient, which clarifies the semantics of the to array and body parameters beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send a transactional email through CamelMailer. It also clarifies the delivery model by saying one message is queued per recipient and their ids are returned. It doesn't explicitly contrast with send_email_with_template, but 'transactional' and direct html_body/text_body hint at the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool: for transactional emails with direct bodies, as opposed to template-based sending. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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