Skip to main content
Glama
helbertparanhos

resend-email-mcp

send_email

Send a single email using Resend, supporting HTML, text, cc, bcc, reply-to, attachments, scheduling, and templates. Specify required recipients and subject.

Instructions

Send a single email via Resend. Supports HTML/text, cc/bcc, reply-to, attachments, tags, custom headers, scheduling, and templates. Uses RESEND_FROM as the default sender when from is omitted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNoSender, e.g. "Acme <hello@acme.com>". Falls back to RESEND_FROM. Domain must be verified.
toYesRecipient address(es), e.g. "user@example.com" or ["a@x.com","b@y.com"]
subjectYesEmail subject line
htmlNoHTML body (provide html and/or text)
textNoPlain-text body (provide html and/or text)
ccNoRecipient address(es), e.g. "user@example.com" or ["a@x.com","b@y.com"]
bccNoRecipient address(es), e.g. "user@example.com" or ["a@x.com","b@y.com"]
replyToNoReply-To address(es). Falls back to RESEND_REPLY_TO.
scheduledAtNoSchedule for later: ISO-8601 or natural language like "in 1 hour" / "tomorrow at 9am"
attachmentsNo
tagsNo
headersNoCustom headers, e.g. {"X-Entity-Ref-ID": "123"}
templateIdNoSend using a saved template instead of html/text
templateDataNoVariables to interpolate into the template
idempotencyKeyNoOptional Idempotency-Key to make retries safe (avoids duplicate sends)
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are present but minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the default sender fallback behavior but does not discuss rate limits, authentication requirements, or error states. For a tool with complex behaviors, more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a concise list of features. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers features comprehensively but omits return value structure or potential error scenarios. For a complex tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 high (87%), so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the default sender fallback for the 'from' parameter. However, this is the only parameter-level addition beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states 'Send a single email via Resend', specifying the action (send), resource (email), and platform. It lists multiple supported features (HTML/text, cc/bcc, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_batch_emails and send_broadcast.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch sending or broadcast). Usage context is implied by the name and sibling list, but no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parameter details.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/helbertparanhos/resend-email-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server