google-workspace-alias-mcp

send_template_email

Send templated emails with dynamic variable replacement to recipients, using a send-as alias for the sender address.

Instructions

Send an email using a template with variables

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "template": "<template>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "variables": "<variables>"
    },
    "name": "send_template_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	List of CC recipients
`to`	Yes	List of recipient email addresses
`bcc`	No	List of BCC recipients
`from`	No	Send-as alias email address
`template`	Yes	Template name to use
`variables`	Yes	Variables to replace in template (e.g., {"name": "John", "meeting_name": "Project Review"})

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether the email is sent immediately, error handling for missing variables, or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could include more detail without being verbose, such as mentioning required template existence.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief for a tool with 6 parameters including a nested object. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or prerequisites like template availability.

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?

All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning with 'with variables', but the schema already explains variable substitution clearly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (send an email) and resource (using a template with variables). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'send_email' or 'send_scheduled_email', which could also send emails.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that templates must be created beforehand via 'create_template', or when to use plain email sending instead.

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