Envía email usando un template predefinido. Cuesta 2 créditos. Templates: welcome, invoice, reset_password, notification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Email destinatario | |
| from | No | Email remitente (opcional) | |
| smtp | Yes | ||
| template | Yes | Nombre del template: welcome, invoice, reset_password, notification | |
| variables | No | Variables para el template |
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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the 2-credit cost, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or behavior when the template is missing. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks depth.
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 sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then listing templates and the credit cost. Every sentence carries useful information, with no unnecessary filler.
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?
For a tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It lists templates and cost but does not explain the role of 'variables', distinguish from sibling tools, or describe what happens after sending. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is high (80%), with parameter descriptions for 'to', 'template', and 'variables'. The description's list of templates duplicates the schema's enum-like description, adding no new meaning. It does not clarify how 'variables' interacts with templates or what 'smtp' expects beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool sends an email using a predefined template, with a specific list of available templates (welcome, invoice, reset_password, notification). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_email or send_bulk.
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 implies use cases by mentioning 'template predefinido' and listing template names, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_bulk or send_email. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.
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.