Skip to main content
Glama

Faivelo Email

Replace a draft

update_draft
Destructive

Replace the whole content of a draft. Pass every field the draft should have, not only the ones that change. The draft comes back under a NEW uid; the old uid stops existing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC address(es), comma-separated
toNoRecipient address(es), comma-separated. May be left out and filled in later.
bccNoBCC address(es), comma-separated
uidYesDraft UID from create_draft, or from list_messages on the "Drafts" folder
htmlNoHTML body
textNoPlain-text body
mailboxYesFull mailbox address
subjectNo
fromNameNoFrom name the draft is sent under; default is the mailbox's own name
inReplyToNoMessage-ID being replied to (for threading)
referencesNoSpace-separated Message-IDs of the conversation so far

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / fromName
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "From name the draft is sent under; default is the mailbox's own name",
      +  "maxLength": 128,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds critical behavior: the draft gets a NEW uid and the old uid ceases to exist. This goes beyond the annotation and warns the agent about identity change. It does not cover error handling or authentication.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then a usage rule, then a behavioral consequence. No wasted words.

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?

For an update tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical replacement semantics and uid change, making it complete enough for correct invocation. Annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 91%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds vital semantics: all fields must be supplied for the desired state, not just changed ones. This constrains parameter usage in a way the schema does not.

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 (Replace) and resource (draft), and distinguishes from siblings like create_draft by emphasizing whole-content replacement. The full-replace semantics are front-loaded and unambiguous.

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?

Provides the key usage rule — pass every field, not just changed ones — but does not mention alternative tools (e.g., create_draft for new drafts) or when this tool should be chosen over them. Usage is implied but not explicitly compared to alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.