Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Testimonial.to MCP Server

Testimonial.to MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Send a requested testimonial email

send_testimonial_request
Destructive

Sends a real Testimonial.to testimonial request email to a customer, requiring explicit confirmation before delivery; no dry run or retry guarantee.

Instructions

Side-effecting GET sends a real request email. Explicit local confirmation is mandatory. No dry run, retry or delivery guarantee.

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>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "spaceName": "<spaceName>",
      "adminName": "<adminName>"
    },
    "name": "send_testimonial_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesActual approved email context.
emailYesActual approved email context.
accountNoExact configured private account profile label; not a tenant or provider account ID.
confirmNoSet true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
adminNameYesActual approved email context.
spaceNameYesActual approved email context.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true for the requested mutation or exclusive private output file."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."
  2. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, but the description adds genuinely new operational facts: it sends a real email, it requires explicit local confirmation, and there is no dry run, retry or delivery guarantee. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs before triggering an irreversible send.

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?

Three short sentences, with the side effect and the confirmation requirement front-loaded. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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?

For a six-parameter, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers impact, prerequisite and failure expectations well. It could still say what the recipient receives or that content comes from approved email context, but the essentials for safe invocation are present.

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 parameters are already well documented (including 'confirm' and the non-tenant 'account' label). The description's confirmation sentence loosely maps to the confirm parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: sends a real testimonial request email. It also flags the unusual transport ('side-effecting GET'), which distinguishes it from read-style siblings like list_testimonials. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('explicit local confirmation is mandatory') and a clear exclusion ('no dry run'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It still never names an alternative sibling (e.g. preview_testimonial_batch) for users who want to inspect without sending.

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