Skip to main content
Glama

late_materials_impact_email

Draft an email confirming receipt of late client materials, noting the impact on your timeline, and providing a revised delivery date to protect your schedule without confrontation.

Instructions

Write the email confirming receipt of client materials or feedback that arrived after the agreed deadline, and formally noting the revised delivery timeline as a result. Sends an email that (a) confirms what arrived and when, (b) briefly and professionally notes the impact without accusing the client, (c) states the revised delivery date, and (d) keeps the relationship warm. This is the email that protects your timeline while avoiding confrontation — most freelancers skip it and then get blamed for the delay, or send something that reads as passive-aggressive. Distinct from client_material_chase_email (chasing materials you haven't received yet) and project_delay_notification_email (your own delay — not client-caused). Three routes: brief (default — short professional note, minimal friction, just sets the new expectation), significant_impact (major delay needing a substantial timeline revision — more formal, important for contract protection), repeated (materials are late for the second or more time — firmer tone while still professional, makes clear the pattern affects deadlines). Does not count against your monthly draft limit. Required: client_name, materials_received (what arrived — e.g. 'your brand guidelines and copy'), original_deadline (when materials were due — e.g. 'Monday 16 June'), revised_delivery_date (your new delivery date — e.g. 'Wednesday 25 June'). Optional: project_name, route ('brief' | 'significant_impact' | 'repeated' — default brief), your_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesClient first name
materials_receivedYesWhat you received — e.g. 'your brand guidelines and logo files', 'the copy for the homepage', 'your feedback on the first draft'
original_deadlineYesWhen the materials were originally due — e.g. 'Monday 16 June', 'last Friday', 'end of last week'
revised_delivery_dateYesYour new delivery date — e.g. 'Wednesday 25 June', 'end of next week', 'Friday 27 June'
project_nameNoOptional: project name — e.g. 'the Westbrook rebrand', 'your Q3 campaign'
routeNobrief (default) — short, professional, low friction; significant_impact — major timeline revision, more formal; repeated — late materials more than once, firmer but still professional.
your_nameNoOptional: your name for the sign-off
Behavior4/5

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

Describes the email's purpose and tone, plus the benefit of protecting timeline and avoiding confrontation. Also notes it does not count against draft limit. No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden; it is mostly transparent but could mention if email is sent immediately or saved as draft.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, content points, sibling distinction, routes, and parameter list. Front-loaded with core action. Could be slightly shorter but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Comprehensive for a tool with 7 parameters (4 required) and no output schema. Explains the email's components, route variations, and parameter meanings. Lacks discussion of return value, but for an email-sending action this is acceptable.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining the required parameters in narrative form and providing examples. It also elaborates on the route enum meanings, adding value.

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 it writes an email confirming receipt of late materials, noting the timeline impact. It lists four specific actions (a-d) and distinguishes from two sibling tools, ensuring no confusion.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (client materials late), what to include (four points), and three route options (brief, significant_impact, repeated). Distinguishes from client_material_chase_email and project_delay_notification_email with clear alternatives.

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/jabbawocky/proposalcraft'

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