Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gws-mcp__gmail_list_drafts

Read-only

Lists the drafts in a Gmail mailbox. Returns one entry per draft with its draft ID, the ID of the message it holds and that message's thread ID, plus a count and a page token when more drafts remain. The draft ID is what gmail_update_draft, gmail_send_draft and gmail_delete_draft take; the message ID is what gmail_read takes to show the draft's content. A mailbox with no drafts answers with a count of 0 and an empty list.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gws-mcp__gmail_list_drafts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoNarrows the list to drafts matching a Gmail search query, in the same syntax as gmail_search (for example "subject:invoice" or "to:someone@example.com").
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
page_tokenNoThe nextPageToken from an earlier call, to read the page after it.
max_resultsNoThe most drafts to return in one page (default: 20, at most 500).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail on top: the shape of each entry, the presence of a count and next-page token when more drafts remain, and the explicit empty-mailbox case returning count 0 and an empty list. It stops short of mentioning rate limits or auth/account-scoping behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, return shape, ID-to-tool mapping, and the empty-result edge case. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values — and it does so precisely, including pagination and the zero-draft case. For a read-only list tool with four fully documented optional parameters, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 query syntax, account selection, page_token and max_results bounds are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or interactions beyond that, so the baseline 3 is the right ceiling here.

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 and resource ('Lists the drafts in a Gmail mailbox') and immediately scopes it by describing the per-draft fields returned. An agent can distinguish this from gmail_list or gmail_search without opening a schema, because the description makes clear it returns draft records rather than messages.

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 routes the agent forward by naming exactly which downstream tools consume the returned IDs: gmail_update_draft, gmail_send_draft and gmail_delete_draft take the draft ID, while gmail_read takes the message ID. That is genuinely useful chaining guidance, but it never states when to prefer this over gmail_search or gmail_list, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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

All DataToRAG toolsInspect
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