Sends a plain-text Gmail message to a recipient with a subject and body, enabling automated email delivery from UnClick workflows.
Send a plain-text Gmail message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Recipient email address | |
| body | Yes | Plain-text email body | |
| from | No | Optional From header (defaults to me) | |
| subject | Yes | Email subject | |
| access_token | No | Gmail access token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the message is plain-text, but does not disclose authentication requirements (e.g., access_token), side effects such as sent-folder behavior, rate limits, or whether the send is immediate and irreversible.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a five-parameter mutation tool, so its brevity does not fully earn its place as sufficient structure.
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?
Given a mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits authentication needs, behavioral constraints, and any operational context beyond the plain-text format.
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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the plain-text constraint and does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb (Send) and resource (Gmail message) with a clear scope (plain-text). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling send tools such as email_send or other messaging send actions, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only implies usage from the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.