Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Envoi MCP

Envoi MCP

by chriskoturathbun
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

reply_to_email

Reply to emails while preserving conversation threads using the Envoi MCP server's email management capabilities.

Instructions

Reply to an email, maintaining the conversation thread

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": {
      "email_id": "<email_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
email_idYesThe ID of the email to reply to
bodyYesReply body (plain text or HTML)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions thread maintenance but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether replies are sent immediately or saved as drafts, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes the key behavioral detail about thread maintenance, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 2 parameters, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on permissions, response format, or error handling, making it minimally viable but incomplete for safe agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining email_id format or body content constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Reply to an email') and resource ('an email'), specifying it maintains the conversation thread. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_email' beyond the thread maintenance aspect.

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 usage for replying within an existing thread, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'send_email' for new emails or 'check_inbox' for reading. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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