send16-mcp

generate_email_from_url

Scrape any public URL to automatically generate an email draft with subject, preview, and HTML body.

Instructions

Scrape a URL (e.g. a launch blog post or product page) and generate an email draft from its content. Returns subject, preview text, and HTML body.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "generate_email_from_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public URL to scrape and turn into an email
`apiKey`	No	Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
`instructions`	No	Additional guidance — e.g. 'announcement style, focus on the new feature'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.7Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scrapes a URL and returns subject, preview text, and HTML body, but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements (beyond the API key parameter), or any rate limits. The behavior is minimally described.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately detail the output. Every word contributes value with no wasted text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the return values (subject, preview text, HTML body). With full schema coverage and a straightforward purpose, the description is sufficient, though it could mention the expected output format or size.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter adequately described. The tool description adds a usage example for the 'url' parameter ('e.g. a launch blog post or product page'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 (scrape a URL and generate an email draft) and the resource (content from a URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'design_email_template' and 'send_email' by focusing on URL-based generation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context with examples ('e.g. a launch blog post or product page'), indicating appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server