Envía un email transaccional. Cuesta 1 crédito.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Email destinatario | |
| from | No | Email remitente (opcional) | |
| html | No | Cuerpo en HTML | |
| smtp | Yes | Configuración SMTP | |
| text | No | Cuerpo en texto plano | |
| subject | Yes | Asunto del email |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does state 'Cuesta 1 crédito' (costs 1 credit), which is useful. However, it omits other traits like SMTP authentication needs, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, or error handling. The cost mention is a positive, but coverage is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the cost. Every word earns its place—there is no redundancy or filler. It's a model of concise writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a nested SMTP object and 6 parameters, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain when to choose this over siblings, what the response looks like, or how the SMTP config is used. Schema covers parameters, but the description leaves significant contextual gaps for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond the schema, such as how to choose between text and html or the significance of optional fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Envía un email transaccional' clearly states the action (send) and the resource (transactional email). It implicitly differentiates from siblings send_bulk and send_template by specifying 'transactional', but does not explicitly contrast them, so it loses some distinctiveness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus send_bulk or send_template. It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. Users would not know if this is the correct choice for their use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: send_bulk for multiple emails, send_email for a single transactional email, and send_template for using predefined templates. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow the consistent 'send_' prefix followed by a clear noun (bulk, email, template). This creates a predictable and readable pattern.
With exactly 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of sending emails. Each tool covers a distinct use case without unnecessary bloat.
The core sending operations are covered: bulk, single, and template-based. Minor gaps exist such as attachment support or scheduling, but for a basic email sending server, the surface is adequate.