MCP Aruba Email & Calendar Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reply_email

Send a threaded reply to an existing email by preserving Message-ID and References, so responses stay in the same conversation. Add optional CC recipients and file attachments.

Instructions

Reply to an existing email, preserving the thread.

Fetches the original email, extracts threading headers (Message-ID, References), and sends a reply that appears in the same conversation thread in the recipient's mail client.

Args: email_id: Email ID to reply to (from list_emails) body: Reply body (plain text) cc: Optional CC email addresses (comma-separated) folder: Mail folder where the original email lives (default: INBOX) attachments: Optional comma-separated file paths to attach (e.g., "/path/to/file.pdf,/path/to/image.png")

Returns: Send status with details

Example: reply_email( email_id="123", body="Thank you for your email, here is the updated proposal.", attachments="/path/to/proposal.pdf" )

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_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cc`	No
`body`	Yes
`folder`	No	INBOX
`email_id`	Yes
`attachments`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the important behavior: it performs an immediate send, it reads the original's threading headers, and it returns send status. Left undisclosed are failure modes (missing email, invalid folder), permission requirements, and whether the original is marked read — gaps for an irreversible send operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then structured Args/Returns/Example sections that are easy to scan. Minor redundancy: thread preservation is stated in the opening line and restated in the second paragraph, and the Returns section adds little beyond the output schema.

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 five parameters, zero schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description supplies what the schema omits — parameter formats, defaults, and a worked example. An agent could call it correctly; only error-handling and permission expectations are missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully: it explains email_id's source, that body is plain text, that cc and attachments are comma-separated strings, and gives the INBOX default for folder. The attachment path example clarifies an otherwise ambiguous string format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reply to an existing email, preserving the thread") and explains the mechanism — fetching the original, extracting Message-ID/References, and sending so it lands in the same conversation. That is clearly distinct from send_email, which starts a new thread.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Usage context is clear: this is for responding within an existing conversation, and the email_id is explicitly sourced from list_emails, which routes the agent to the right discovery tool first. It never names send_email as the alternative for new messages or states exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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