Skip to main content
Glama
kojott

mailmcp

by kojott
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Send email

send_message
Destructive

Send email through SMTP with optional attachments, honoring allowlist and sending permissions. Use draft creation when sending is not allowed.

Instructions

Sends an email via SMTP, optionally with attachments (existing mailbox attachments, uploaded files, inline content). Only allowed when the owner enabled sending for the account AND every recipient matches send_allowlist. Otherwise use create_draft.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toYesRecipient addresses
bccNo
htmlNoOptional HTML body (scripts are stripped); when absent it is rendered from text
textYesPlain-text body
quoteNoQuote the original under the reply (default true when replying)
accountYesAccount id from list_accounts
subjectYes
attachmentsNoFiles to attach: existing mailbox attachments, uploaded files (folder "mailmcp-uploads"), inline content, or local paths
in_reply_to_uidNouid of the message being answered: sets In-Reply-To/References, keeps the Re: subject and quotes the original. Prefer reply_draft / reply_send.
in_reply_to_folderNoFolder/label path. Defaults to All Mail on Gmail, INBOX elsewhere.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv0.8.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / maxLength
      Added value: +512
    • removedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / minimum
      Removed value: -1
    • changedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / maxItems
      Added value: +20
    • addedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / maxLength
      Added value: +512
    • removedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / minimum
      Removed value: -1
    • changedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"string"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds an auth requirement (owner-enabled sending and send_allowlist), which is exactly the kind of behavioral context that goes beyond annotations. It does not detail rate limits or permanent side effects, but the authorization disclosure earns it a 4.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the attachment capability is summarized, and the usage condition follows immediately. 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?

For a tool with 11 parameters and complex attachment semantics, the description covers the essential purpose, the authorization gate, and the fallback tool. It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists and the missing details (e.g., local path restrictions, reply preferences) are already present in the input schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

Schema description coverage is 73%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a useful high-level grouping of attachment types ('existing mailbox attachments, uploaded files, inline content'), but otherwise it does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the moderate coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sends an email via SMTP') and clearly distinguishes itself from create_draft by name. It also summarizes the optional attachment capability, making the tool's scope unambiguous even among siblings like send_draft and reply_send.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition for use ('Only allowed when the owner enabled sending... AND every recipient matches send_allowlist') and names the alternative ('Otherwise use create_draft'). This gives the agent a clear decision rule, going beyond implied context.

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