Skip to main content
Glama
ignytehq

plunk-mcp

Official
by ignytehq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Send email

plunk_send_transactional
Destructive

Send a one-off transactional email to specific recipients using subject and body or a template, ideal for receipts, replies, and notifications.

Instructions

Purpose: Send a one-off email to specific recipients, with an inline subject and body or a template id.

Not for: Mail to a list or segment — that is a campaign (plunk_create_campaign then plunk_send_campaign), which respects unsubscribes properly.

Returns: Confirmation of the send.

Use when: Messaging a named person or small set of people: a receipt, a reply, a notification.

Note: Supply subject and body, or template. from is optional and falls back to the project's default sender. Sending to more than one recipient asks for confirmation first. Pass idempotencyKey to make a retry safe after a timeout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient email, object, or array
bodyNoHTML or text body. Required unless template is provided.
dataNoVariables for template/body interpolation.
fromNoSender. Optional — falls back to the project's default sender when omitted.
nameNoSender display name (legacy field).
replyNo
headersNo
subjectNoSubject line. Required unless template is provided.
templateNoTemplate UUID to use instead of subject/body.
subscribedNo
attachmentsNo
idempotencyKeyNoOptional. A unique string of your choosing that makes a retry safe: if this key was already used by the project, Plunk refuses the request with 409 instead of sending twice. Keys are remembered for 24 hours. Plunk v0.13+.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / data / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / from / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "email": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "name": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "email"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "email": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "email"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / headers / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotencyKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. A unique string of your choosing that makes a retry safe: if this key was already used by the project, Plunk refuses the request with 409 instead of sending twice. Keys are remembered for 24 hours. Plunk v0.13+.",
+  "maxLength": 255,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / template / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / to / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {
-        "description": "Email address",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      {
-        "additionalProperties": false,
-        "properties": {
-          "email": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "name": {
-            "type": "string"
-          }
-        },
-        "required": [
-          "email"
-        ],
-        "type": "object"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "description": "Email address",
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "additionalProperties": false,
-          "properties": {
-            "email": {
-              "type": "string"
-            },
-            "name": {
-              "type": "string"
-            }
-          },
-          "required": [
-            "email"
-          ],
-          "type": "object"
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "description": "Email address",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "properties": {
+          "email": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "email"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "description": "Email address",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "properties": {
+            "email": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "name": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "email"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: multi-recipient sends ask for confirmation first, `from` silently falls back to the project default, and idempotencyKey makes a post-timeout retry safe. It does not spell out the irreversibility of a send or rate-limit behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Bold labeled sections (Purpose / Not for / Returns / Use when / Note) front-load the scope decision, the exclusion, and the operational caveats in roughly 90 words. Every sentence carries distinct information — no boilerplate or repetition of the name.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the mutually exclusive payload modes, the optional sender default, retry safety, and the return shape ('Confirmation of the send'). An agent has enough to call it correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 67%, so several parameters (reply, headers, subscribed, name) are undocumented anywhere. The description compensates on the highest-value ones: subject/body required unless template is supplied, `from` optional with default fallback, and the retry semantics of idempotencyKey. That is meaningful added meaning beyond the schema, though the uncovered fields remain gaps.

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 ('send a one-off email to specific recipients') and immediately scopes the payload ('inline subject and body or a template id'). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (campaigns), so an agent can distinguish it from the ~60 sibling tools without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The 'Not for' block names the alternative path (plunk_create_campaign then plunk_send_campaign) and the reason (list/segment mail respects unsubscribes properly). The 'Use when' block gives concrete triggering scenarios (receipt, reply, notification to a named person or small set). Explicit when/when-not/alternatives are all present.

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