Skip to main content
Glama

project_status_update_email

Write a client-ready project status update email detailing completed work, progress, next steps, and any blockers or requests. Keep clients informed without needing a meeting.

Instructions

Write a clear, scannable project status update email to send to a client on a regular cadence (weekly, bi-weekly, or at a milestone). Covers what was completed, what is in progress, and what is coming next — with optional sections for blockers and items needed from the client. Keeps clients informed without requiring a call. Does not count against your monthly draft limit. Required: client_name, project_name, completed. Optional: in_progress, coming_next, blockers, items_needed (what you need from the client), timeline_status (on_track / ahead / at_risk / delayed), your_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesFirst name or full name of the client
project_nameYesName or brief description of the project
completedYesWhat was completed since the last update (e.g. 'Homepage design finalised and approved, About page copy written, CMS set up and configured'). Use bullet points or comma-separated items.
in_progressNoOptional: what is currently being worked on right now (e.g. 'Services page design, setting up contact form', 'Writing the case study section'). If omitted, this section is skipped.
coming_nextNoOptional: what is planned for the next period (e.g. 'Blog template, mobile QA', 'Final round of revisions, staging deployment'). If omitted, this section is skipped.
blockersNoOptional: anything that is blocking progress or creating risk (e.g. 'Waiting on brand guidelines from your designer', 'Server access credentials not yet received'). If omitted, this section is skipped.
items_neededNoOptional: specific things you need from the client to keep the project moving (e.g. 'Approved copy for the Services page', 'Decision on primary CTA colour', 'Confirmation of go-live date'). If omitted, this section is skipped.
timeline_statusNoOptional: overall timeline status. on_track (default, status line omitted), ahead (note positive progress), at_risk (flag early without alarming), delayed (inform clearly with reason if provided in blockers). If omitted, no timeline status line is included.
your_nameNoOptional: your name for the sign-off
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool writes an email, does not count against a draft limit, and that sections are conditional based on parameters. It does not explicitly confirm email sending, but the context implies it. Overall transparent.

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?

The description is well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then listing required/optional parameters. However, it is somewhat verbose, repeating details already in the schema. Slight condensation would improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema and 9 parameters, the description covers the tool's functionality comprehensively. It explains optional sections and their omission behavior. Missing is explicit mention of the return value (e.g., generated email text) and any side effects, but overall complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the role of each parameter in the email structure (e.g., 'if omitted, this section is skipped'), providing usage examples, and clarifying defaults (timeline_status). This goes well beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: writing a clear, scannable project status update email for regular cadence. It details content coverage (completed, in progress, coming next) and optional sections, distinguishing it from sibling email tools like project_kickoff_email or project_closure_email.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states when to use (weekly, bi-weekly, at a milestone) and mentions it keeps clients informed without a call. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative use cases or compare with similar tools, leaving minor ambiguity.

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