Send up to 100 transactional emails in a single request to batch notifications, receipts, or alerts through the EuroMail API.
Send up to 100 transactional emails in one request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | Yes | Emails to send (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 100-email cap, which is useful, but says nothing about atomicity (does one bad address fail the whole batch?), rate limits, per-recipient validation, or authentication needs — the most consequential behaviors for a bulk send tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but not wrong. The agent still lacks return-value semantics (per-email results vs. aggregate) and failure-mode behavior, which matter more here than for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the nested email fields (from, to, subject, template_alias, etc.) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the max-100 constraint that the schema also states, adding no new meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (send), a specific resource (transactional emails), and a batch scope (up to 100 in one request). This implicitly separates it from the single-send sibling send_email, but the sibling is never named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'up to 100 in one request' bound hints at when batching applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus send_email, nor any statement of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.