Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
send16-mcp

send16-mcp

by spruikco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

pre_send_review

Analyze email HTML pre-send to catch tone issues, broken links, missing alt text, spam triggers, and accessibility problems.

Instructions

Run an AI pre-send review on an email's HTML before sending. Surfaces tone issues, broken links, missing alt text, spam triggers, and accessibility problems.

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "html": "<html>"
    },
    "name": "pre_send_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlYesFull HTML body to review
apiKeyNoSend16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
subjectYesEmail subject line
audienceNoShort description of the audience (helps tone analysis)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.7

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool surfaces. It does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, modifies anything, or has rate limits or authentication requirements beyond the apiKey parameter.

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?

Single sentence with purpose front-loaded, followed by a list of issues surfaced. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Lacks output schema; description does not specify format of results or how to interpret them. For a review tool, more detail on return value would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. Description adds minor context (audience helps tone analysis) but does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'run an AI pre-send review' and specifies the resource 'email HTML'. It lists specific outputs (tone issues, broken links, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_email or preview_campaign_recipients.

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?

'Before sending' provides context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_email, send_broadcast, or preview_campaign_recipients. No exclusions or when-not conditions are mentioned.

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