Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
undo

undo

by tathagat22
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Deliver held email(s)

walkback_email_release

Sends held email drafts permanently. Once released, the email is delivered and cannot be recalled.

Instructions

Actually send the held draft(s). After this the email is delivered and CANNOT be recalled.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "walkback_email_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoProject directory. Defaults to the server's working directory.
draftIdNoA specific held draft id, or omit for all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states that after this the email is delivered and CANNOT be recalled, disclosing irreversibility—a critical behavioral trait.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key consequence. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and irreversible nature. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., emails must be in a held/staged state) and does not explain behavior when draftId is omitted (implicitly all). Adequate but has gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

The description clearly states the tool actually sends held drafts, with the specific verb 'send' and resource 'held drafts'. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel and pending by emphasizing delivery and irreversibility.

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?

The description implies usage for sending held drafts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel or stage. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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