Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mail-calendar-mcp

mail-calendar-mcp

by mathewcsims
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mail_create_signature

Create a new email signature with a specified name and content.

Instructions

Create a new Mail signature.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "mail_create_signature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
contentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), which the description's 'Create' aligns with. However, the description adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations already signal, such as whether creation overwrites existing signatures or requires special permissions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single-sentence description is very concise, but it sacrifices essential details. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, but the brevity leads to information loss that is not compensated by brevity alone.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and the simple parameters, the description should at least hint at the content format (e.g., HTML or plain text) or return value (e.g., the created signature ID). It fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters but fails to do so. 'name' and 'content' are not described at all; the description merely states the action. This leaves the agent without guidance on what values to provide for each parameter.

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 'Create a new Mail signature.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'mail_delete_signature', 'mail_update_signature', and 'mail_list_signatures'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'mail_update_signature' for modifications). There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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