Skip to main content
Glama
gaddobenedetti

MCP Email

by gaddobenedetti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sendTextEmail

Send plain-text emails via SMTP by setting sender, recipients, subject, and body. Useful for AI agents that need to deliver text-only messages and do not require a return result.

Instructions

Sends an email in text 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. All line breaks in the string should be encoded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
subjectYes
fromAddressYes
toAddressesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses 'No result is returned' and the line-break encoding requirement, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or delivery behavior. Partial coverage of a zero-annotation mutation tool.

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 action and the return behavior in two short sentences, then a compact arg list. Every line earns its place given the 0% schema coverage, though 'Args:' boilerplate is slightly mechanical.

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?

All four required parameters are described, and the 'no result is returned' statement removes the need for an output schema. Missing behavioral details (auth, failure modes) are the only notable gap for a send-only tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four parameters are documented with types and intent, plus a non-obvious formatting requirement for body ('line breaks should be encoded'). Only minor gaps (no address format or multi-recipient semantics) keep it from a 5.

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 (Sends) and resource (email) with a differentiating qualifier ('in text format') that cleanly separates it from the sibling sendHtmlEmail. An agent can pick between the two variants without reading either schema.

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 'text format' qualifier implies when to use this versus sendHtmlEmail, but the choice is never stated explicitly and no other context (e.g., recipient limits, when not to use) is given. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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