Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gws-mcp__gmail_send_draft

Destructive

Send an existing Gmail draft by its draft ID. Use this to send a draft that was previously created with gmail_create_draft and reviewed — it sends the draft as stored and removes it from the Drafts folder (no orphaned draft). Returns the sent message metadata. The account's Gmail signature is added only if the draft is not already signed: a draft written by gmail_create_draft or gmail_update_draft carries it already and is sent unchanged, reporting already_present. Pass signature: false to send a draft without adding one. The response's signature field reports what happened. A draft holding files is signed in its text part and its files are sent as they are. A draft in any other shape is sent untouched and reports skipped_unsupported_draft.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "gws-mcp__gmail_send_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
draft_idYesThe Gmail draft ID to send
signatureNoSet false to send without the account's Gmail signature, and to skip the lookup entirely. Defaults to true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses that the draft is removed from Drafts (no orphaned copy), how the signature is conditionally applied, the reporting values (already_present, skipped_unsupported_draft), and the special handling of drafts holding files. This is exactly the kind of consequence detail a write tool needs.

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?

The action and subject are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the destructive consequence and then signature edge cases. It is dense but every sentence about signature/file drafts covers a distinct branch an agent would otherwise guess at; only the signature topic runs slightly long.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names what is returned (sent message metadata, a signature status field) and enumerates the possible outcomes, so an agent needs nothing else to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining the default signature-injection behavior and what signature: false actually skips (the lookup entirely), plus how the outcome is reported back in the signature field.

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 ('Send an existing Gmail draft by its draft ID') and distinguishes itself from draft-mutating siblings by naming gmail_create_draft/gmail_update_draft as the producers of the draft.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use scenario: a draft previously created with gmail_create_draft and reviewed. It does not explicitly contrast with gws-mcp__gmail_send or gmail_delete_draft (send a new message vs discard a draft), so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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