Send HTML emails from AI agents via SMTP, specifying sender, recipients, subject, and body to deliver formatted messages.
Sends an email in HTML format. No result is returned.
Args: fromAddress: String. The Originating address. toAddresses: List of strings. The destination addresses. subject: String. The subject line. body: String. The message body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| fromAddress | Yes | ||
| toAddresses | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states 'No result is returned', which saves the agent from expecting a response object, but says nothing about authentication requirements, deliverability behavior, recipient limits, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded one-line summary of the action and outcome, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, with only minor redundancy between the prose summary and the argument list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four required parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameter contract and the absence of a return value. It omits behavioral context such as bulk-recipient handling, encoding/escaping of the HTML body, or error conditions for a mutation-style operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (properties carry only bare titles like 'Fromaddress'), so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents all four required parameters with types and meaning. It also clarifies that toAddresses is a list of strings, which the schema leaves unresolved (items: {}).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Sends an email in HTML format'), which is clearly distinguishable from pollEmails, getEmailsById and deleteEmailsById. It does not explicitly contrast with its closest sibling sendTextEmail, so the HTML-vs-text choice is left for the agent to infer from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of sendTextEmail, nor any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The only implicit signal is 'HTML format' in the opening sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.