Skip to main content
Glama
camelmailer

CamelMailer MCP Server

Official
by camelmailer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

send_email_with_template

Destructive

Render a stored email template with your variables and send transactional emails, with optional overrides for subject, recipients, and other fields.

Instructions

Render a stored CamelMailer template (Mustache-style {{ variables }}) against template_model and send it. Fields set directly (e.g. subject) override the rendered ones.

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
subjectNoOverride the rendered subject
reply_toNoReply-To addresses
templateYesPermalink of the stored template to render
template_modelNoVariables for the template placeholders
idempotency_keyNoSee send_email; makes the send replayable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "See send_email; makes the send replayable.",
+  "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?

The description explains non-obvious behavior: template rendering against template_model and the rule that directly set fields like subject override rendered values. These details go beyond the annotations and make the tool's runtime behavior clearer, which is especially useful given destructiveHint and openWorldHint.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, followed by a meaningful behavioral note about field overrides, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given 11 parameters packed into a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential high-level semantics: what the tool does, how template rendering works, and how parameter precedence behaves. It does not fully compensate for missing usage guidance around sibling tools, but it is complete enough for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact: template_model supplies placeholder variables)Skip, and direct fields override rendered results. This clarifies the relationship between template_model, subject, and other overridable fields beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific action: render a stored CamelMailer template against template_model and send it. It also adds distinctive details (Mustache-style variables and override behavior) that help differentiate from sibling tools like send_email and render_template, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you want to render a stored template and send the resulting email. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over send_email (for direct content) or render_template (for rendering only), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema provides.

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