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

mail-calendar-mcp

by mathewcsims
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mail_update_signature

Idempotent

Update the content of an existing Mail signature by specifying its name and new content.

Instructions

Update an existing Mail signature's content.

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_update_signature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
contentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or behavior when signature doesn't exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence), but sacrifices essential details. While it is efficient, its brevity reduces usefulness. Could include more context without being verbose.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description should explain return behavior (e.g., success acknowledgment), error states (if signature name not found), and whether the update is atomic. Currently it provides only the minimum purpose.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only mentions 'content' in passing, but does not explain that 'name' identifies the signature or what format 'content' should be (e.g., plain text, HTML). The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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's action ('Update') and resource ('an existing Mail signature's content'), and the tool name matches. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mail_create_signature' and 'mail_delete_signature' by specifying 'update' and 'existing'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete + create), no prerequisites (signature must exist), and no context on idempotency or error conditions. The agent is left to infer usage.

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