Skip to main content
Glama
marginsystems

stormgtm-mcp

by marginsystems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Send email

send_email

Queue up to 100 emails via verified domains with warm-up pacing; returns accepted IDs and rejection reasons, skips suppressed addresses, and refunds failed sends.

Instructions

Queue up to 100 emails from your verified Resend domains. Reply-To is always the from address, and links must stay on the sender's own domain (cross_domain_link otherwise). StormGTM paces each domain through its warm-up, skips suppressed addresses and adds an unsubscribe line. Returns accepted emails (with ids) and rejected ones with a reason. 1 credit per email actually sent; failures are refunded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messagesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: warm-up pacing per domain, suppression skipping, automatic unsubscribe line, forced Reply-To, link-domain restriction with the cross_domain_link error, credit cost, and refund on failure. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five dense sentences, front-loaded with scope and constraints, then behavior, then return shape and cost. Every sentence earns its place, though the credit/refund detail could be trimmed slightly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape (accepted with ids, rejected with reasons), and it covers pacing, suppression, cost, and failure handling. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the nested message fields are only partly described in the schema, so the description adds real value: the 100-item cap, verified-domain requirement for 'from', Reply-To derivation, and the cross-domain link rule. It does not explain idempotencyKey or html/text interplay, but covers most semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Queue up to 100 emails from your verified Resend domains') with concrete scope and the domain constraint, so it is unmistakable against siblings like reply or create_sequence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies the use case (sending outbound email) and states operational constraints, but never says when to prefer this over reply, create_sequence, or enroll_leads, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites beyond domain verification.

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