reply_email
Reply to an existing email directly from your local apps, keeping your workflow uninterrupted.
Instructions
Reply to an existing email
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Reply to an existing email directly from your local apps, keeping your workflow uninterrupted.
Reply to an existing email
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether it opens a draft, sends immediately, or requires authentication.
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, clear sentence. It is appropriately minimal but could benefit from additional context without being verbose.
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 tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description should explain how the target email is identified (e.g., requires a selected email). This is missing, making it incomplete for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% (empty schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters since there are none, but it doesn't compensate for missing context.
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?
The description clearly states 'Reply to an existing email', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_email or read_email.
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?
No guidance on when to use or prerequisites. It doesn't indicate that it likely requires a selected email or context, nor does it contrast with similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lanchuske/local-mcp-releases'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server