Skip to main content
Glama

send_email

Send transactional emails using predefined templates (project invite, magic link, notification) or custom HTML. Supports attachments, threading, and variable substitution.

Instructions

Send an email. Two modes: template (project_invite, magic_link, notification) or raw HTML (subject + html). Optional from_name for display name. Single recipient only. Pass mailbox to target a slug/id; otherwise the configured default_outbound_mailbox_id is used. Result echoes mailbox_id and from_address when the gateway provides them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient email address (single recipient only)
htmlNoHTML email body (raw HTML mode, max 1MB)
textNoPlain text fallback (raw HTML mode, auto-generated from HTML if omitted)
mailboxNoTarget mailbox by slug or id. If omitted, the configured default_outbound_mailbox_id is used; missing/invalid defaults return typed repair errors.
subjectNoEmail subject line (raw HTML mode, max 998 chars)
templateNoEmail template (template mode). project_invite, magic_link, or notification
from_nameNoDisplay name for From header, e.g. "My App" (max 78 chars)
variablesNoTemplate variables (template mode). project_invite: project_name, invite_url. magic_link: project_name, link_url, expires_in. notification: project_name, message (max 500 chars).
project_idYesThe project ID
attachmentsNoBinary attachments — RAW HTML MODE ONLY (with subject + html, not template). Max 5; ≤ 7 MB total (decoded).
in_reply_toNoID of a prior message (typically inbound) to thread this one under. The server uses it to set RFC-822 In-Reply-To and References headers. Usually set via reply flows; leave empty for new threads.
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: two modes, default mailbox fallback, and result echoing mailbox_id and from_address. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or idempotency, but it covers the main behaviors adequately.

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?

The description is only 4 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and free of fluff. Each sentence adds critical information (modes, constraints, mailbox behavior, result). Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main modes and mailbox behavior. However, it fails to mention that attachments are only allowed in raw HTML mode (described in schema but absent here). This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations and high schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer a key constraint.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two-mode concept, which clarifies parameter grouping (e.g., template and variables vs subject+html+attachments). It also reiterates mailbox defaulting, but the schema already does that. Overall, it provides a useful framework for parameter selection.

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 the tool sends an email, specifies two modes (template or raw HTML), and includes key constraints like single recipient and mailbox defaulting. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'send_message' by explicitly naming the action and email mode options.

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 guides usage by detailing two modes and their respective parameters (template vs subject+html), and it mentions single-recipient only. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'send_message' or state when not to use it, leaving some 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/kychee-com/run402-mcp'

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