Envoi MCP

send_email

Send emails from an AI agent's dedicated Envoi.work address to recipients with specified subject and body content.

Instructions

Send an email from your agent's @envoi.work address

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient email address
`subject`	Yes	Email subject line
`body`	Yes	Email body (plain text or HTML)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the sender address but fails to cover critical aspects such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the email is sent immediately or queued. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of an email-sending tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, response format, and how it differs from sibling tools, making it incomplete for effective 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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (to, subject, body) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('send') and resource ('email'), specifying it originates from the agent's @envoi.work address. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reply_to_email' or 'check_inbox', which reduces clarity in distinguishing use cases.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reply_to_email' or 'check_inbox', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the basic function without contextual usage advice.

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

Deploy Server