Boomerang

Update draft

update_draft

Destructive

Save user edits to the latest draft of a specific type (GHOSTWRITTEN_EMAIL, FORWARDABLE_EMAIL, or TEXT) for an intro request. Call this when the user clicks Save in the editable email or text UI rendered from get_draft_by_type. Pass the full edited email_content or text_content (all fields, not just changed ones) and set is_manually_edited=true.

Use when: Use when the user edits a draft in the editable UI from get_draft_by_type and clicks Save — e.g. changes subject, body, To/CC, or the text message. Always set is_manually_edited=true. After saving: update the artifact in place with the saved content (do not re-fetch via get_draft_by_type unless the response content differs from what was submitted) and confirm success in plain language — e.g. 'Your edits to the Ghostwritten Email have been saved.' Do not explain tool names or internal state.

Behavior: destructive

workspace_id / user_id are injected from request headers.

Next steps (after this tool succeeds): [optional] [SUGGESTION] → call intro_request_send_state_change_event: After editing, call intro_request_send_state_change_event with INTRO_REQUESTED_EVENT to submit the intro request for admin review.

Also returns pagination info (request_context).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`draft_type`	No
`text_content`	No
`email_content`	No
`intro_request_id`	No
`is_manually_edited`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / _triggered_by

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "REQUIRED. Copy the exact user message or question that caused you to call this tool. Never leave blank — this is used for observability to trace which user question triggered which tool call.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Behavior: destructive' is consistent. Beyond annotations it adds genuinely useful context: pass ALL fields not just changed ones (implying full replacement of prior draft content), set is_manually_edited=true, and workspace_id/user_id are injected from request headers. It stops short of explicitly stating that existing draft content is overwritten/destroyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the text is long and repetitive: the get_draft_by_type / click-Save condition appears in the opening sentence and again in the 'Use when:' block, and the post-save instructions run several sentences. Some of the length is justified by the routing detail, but it could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description adds return context anyway (pagination info via request_context) plus next-step routing. Combined with the explicit trigger and mutation guidance, it is nearly complete, with the only real gap being the undocumented status/intro_request_id parameters.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains draft_type values, the full-content semantics of email_content/text_content, is_manually_edited=true, and that workspace_id/user_id come from headers, but leaves status and intro_request_id entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save user edits to the latest draft') and enumerates the draft types (GHOSTWRITTEN_EMAIL, FORWARDABLE_EMAIL, TEXT), clearly distinguishing it from the read-side sibling get_draft_by_type and from other update_* tools. An agent can identify the operation and target resource without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit trigger ('Call this when the user clicks Save in the editable email or text UI rendered from get_draft_by_type'), restates it in a 'Use when:' block, and adds post-save guidance (update the artifact in place, don't re-fetch unless content differs, confirm in plain language). It even names the downstream sibling intro_request_send_state_change_event for the next step.

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

All Boomerang tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?