Skip to main content
Glama

Mailrith Email Marketing

by com.mailrith

Send automation test messages

automations_send_test
Destructive

Sends up to five selected saved Automation email steps to one explicit test address. This does not start the Automation or run other actions. Effect: external-email. Retry with the same idempotency_key. Permissions: live_actions:write, subscribers:read, automations:write. API reference: https://mailrith.com/developers/api-reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe exact JSON request body defined by the Mailrith public API contract.
automation_idYesThe Automation identifier.
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key to retry the request safely. It must not exceed 256 UTF-8 bytes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
responseNo
request_idYesThe stable correlation ID for this MCP tool invocation.
operation_idYesThe stable Mailrith public API operation ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / WorkflowTestResult / properties / provider_message_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Provider acceptance IDs in sent-message order; null when unavailable. These are not delivery or inbox receipts.",
+  "items": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "maxLength": 200,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "null"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "maxItems": 5,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Optional idempotency key to make retries safe."New value: +"Optional idempotency key to retry the request safely. It must not exceed 256 UTF-8 bytes."
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / maxLength
      Added value: +256
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Optional idempotency key to retry the request safely. It must not exceed 256 UTF-8 bytes."New value: +"Optional idempotency key to make retries safe."
    • removedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / maxLength
      Removed value: -256
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Optional idempotency key to make retries safe."New value: +"Optional idempotency key to retry the request safely. It must not exceed 256 UTF-8 bytes."
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / maxLength
      Added value: +256
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the external-email side effect, confirms that the Automation is not started, and explains safe retry behavior with the same idempotency_key. It also lists required permissions. These details give an agent a clear and accurate behavioral profile without contradicting the annotations.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact, high-signal labels for effect, retry semantics, permissions, and API reference. Every part earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a tool with a nested request body and three top-level parameters.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with an output schema and fully documented schema fields, the description covers the external side effect, the non-start of the Automation, retry behavior, and permissions. The nested request-body details are already fully specified in the schema, so nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents automation_id, body, recipient, message_ids, subscriber_id, and idempotency_key. The description reinforces 'up to five', 'selected saved', and retry behavior, but it adds little semantic 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 action: sending up to five selected saved Automation email steps to an explicit test address. It also distinguishes the tool by explicitly saying it does not start the Automation or run other actions, making its purpose unambiguous relative to automation update, preflight, and preview siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: testing saved Automation email steps without starting the Automation. It explicitly states a when-not behavior, but it does not name alternative sibling tools such as sequences_send_test or broadcasts_send_test, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mailrith Email Marketing toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool is prefixed by its resource and targets a unique action, so there is no real overlap between tools. Even similar operations like preflight, preview_journey, and send_test are clearly separated by resource and described with distinct effects.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `resource_action` snake_case pattern, e.g., broadcasts_create, subscribers_upsert, sequences_update_status. Custom verbs like cancel, unschedule, and preview_journey still fit the same predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

55 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently discover and choose among the surface. While each tool appears justified, the size suggests the API should be split into focused servers by resource domain.

Completeness3/5

The broadcast, automation, sequence, and subscriber workflows are well covered with lifecycle operations. However, custom fields and segments only have read/list/preview operations with no create, update, or delete, and several resources lack delete endpoints, leaving notable gaps for full lifecycle management.

Resources