Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
send16-mcp

send16-mcp

by spruikco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

render_email_content

Render EmailContent JSON into HTML for preview and post-processing, producing the exact HTML the API would send.

Instructions

Compile an EmailContent JSON object (the shape used by the Send16 builder + templates) into HTML using the platform's authoritative renderer. Returns the exact HTML the API would send. Useful for previews and post-processing.

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "render_email_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyNoSend16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
contentYesEmailContent JSON (from get_template or the builder)
variablesNoVariable replacements (e.g. {firstName:'Alice'})

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.7

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses core behavior (compiling to HTML, returning exact HTML). No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral burden. Lacks details on error handling, preconditions (API key requirement), or safety profile.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence front-loads the core action. No wasted words.

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?

Covers input, output (HTML), and use case. No output schema, but description states return type. Missing mention of errors or API key necessity, but sufficiently clear for a render tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds context about content shape and origin ('from get_template or the builder') but adds minimal value beyond schema. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 tool compiles EmailContent JSON into HTML using the authoritative renderer and returns exact HTML for previews/post-processing. It distinguishes from siblings like send_email and design_email_template.

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?

Explicitly states usefulness for previews and post-processing, implying when to use. However, does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternatives.

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