Skip to main content
Glama
wraps-team

Wraps Email for Amazon SES

by wraps-team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

estimate_cost

Read-only

Estimate monthly email sending costs for Wraps and AWS with an itemized bill for SES, EventBridge, SQS, Lambda, and DynamoDB. Avoid manual calculations—no AWS credentials required.

Instructions

Estimate the monthly cost of sending email with Wraps + AWS: the flat Wraps plan fee and an itemized AWS bill (SES, EventBridge, SQS, Lambda, DynamoDB, dedicated IP, WAF). Use this instead of calculating by hand — the cost model has several interacting variables, including which SES pricing plan the AWS account is on. Requires no AWS credentials.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNoWraps plan. The fee is flat per plan and does not change with volume.
emailsYesEmails sent per month
billingNoWraps billing interval
sesPlanNoAWS SES pricing plan for this account and Region. AWS defaults new accounts to 'essentials' ($0.16/1K); 'alacarte' is $0.10/1K. Defaults to alacarte.
trackingNoWhether the event tracking pipeline is deployed (default true)
retentionNoEmail event history retention
dedicatedIpNoInclude a dedicated sending IP

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.8.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / events
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Wraps tracked events per month (sends, opens, clicks, bounces, custom events)",
-  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "integer"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / tier / description
      Previous value: -"Wraps plan"New value: +"Wraps plan. The fee is flat per plan and does not change with volume."
    • changedInput schema / properties / tier / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "free",
-  "starter",
-  "growth",
-  "scale"
-]New value: +[
+  "free",
+  "pro",
+  "business"
+]
  2. First observedv0.8.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool requires no AWS credentials, produces an itemized bill, and depends on the account's SES pricing plan. These details help the agent understand what the estimate covers and what inputs matter.

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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and practical guidance in the second. Every clause adds value—the list of AWS services is concrete, and the note about credentials prevents wasted calls. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does a decent job by stating it returns the flat Wraps plan fee and an itemized AWS bill. However, it does not specify the output format, currency, or whether the estimate is provided as a detailed breakdown or a single number. Given the tool's complexity, a bit more detail about 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 input schema fully documents each of the 7 parameters. The description mentions that the cost model has interacting variables and specifically calls out the SES pricing plan, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It earns the baseline 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate the monthly cost of sending email with Wraps + AWS.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools (send_email, get_email_event_log, etc.) by focusing on cost estimation rather than sending or logging. The scope is explicit, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does.

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 guidance: 'Use this instead of calculating by hand' and notes 'Requires no AWS credentials,' which sets expectations. It explains that the cost model has interacting variables, signaling when this tool is valuable. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is distinct enough that no exclusion is necessary.

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