Multi Mail

Draft a message

drafts_create

Compose a message in a connected mailbox and keep it there as a draft.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	Who to copy.
`to`	Yes	Who the message is addressed to.
`bcc`	No	Who to blind-copy. The other recipients are not told.
`body`	Yes	The message text.
`html`	No	The message as HTML, for formatting; body stays its plain-text version. An Outlook mailbox keeps only the HTML and writes the plain version from it.
`mailbox`	Yes	The mailbox's name or its email address.
`subject`	Yes	The subject line.
`attachments`	No	Files to carry: one held by a connected mailbox of the draft's own provider, or content you write out.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`link`	No
`threadId`	No
`previousVersionId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / previousVersionId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- changedOutput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "link"
-]New value: +[
+  "id"
+]
```

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / bcc / items / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

changedInput schema / properties / cc / items / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

changedInput schema / properties / to / items / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the draft is retained, not dispatched — but says nothing about permissions, provider constraints, or limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and the retain-as-draft constraint both land immediately. It is arguably undersized for an 8-parameter tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema fully documents inputs. However, for a tool with 8 parameters and several near-identical draft siblings, the description does not fully equip the agent with routing or prerequisite context.

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 every one of the 8 parameters (including the two attachment shapes) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about mailbox, recipients, html/body interaction, or attachments, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (compose) and resource (a message) with an explicit behavioral constraint: it is kept in the mailbox as a draft rather than sent. This implicitly distinguishes it from drafts_send, but the sibling is not named, so the differentiation requires inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'keep it there as a draft' implies the use case (create without sending), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a connected mailbox of a specific provider), and no named alternatives among drafts_send/drafts_forward/drafts_reply.

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

All Multi Mail 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.