Skip to main content
Glama

Send a draft from the draft card

send_draft_from_card
Destructive

Used by the draft card when the person clicks Send. Needs the card's single-use approval nonce, which agents never have. Agents send with send_draft, which needs the person's approval in the app prompt or on the approval page.

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": {
      "nonce": "<nonce>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_draft_from_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toYes
bccNo
bodyYes
nonceYes
subjectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the crucial non-obvious constraint that the nonce is single-use and unobtainable by an agent. It doesn't cover failure behavior (expired/consumed nonce), which keeps it short of 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?

Three short sentences with the caller identity first and the agent-facing redirect last. No restatement of the title, no waste.

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 a tool that agents are meant never to invoke, the description's job is to explain why and where to go instead, and it does both in full. No output schema exists, but nothing an agent needs in order to correctly avoid this tool 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and only explains `nonce` (single-use approval nonce), the one genuinely non-obvious parameter. The remaining five are conventional email fields (to/subject/body/cc/bcc) recoverable from their names and maxLength bounds, so the gap is tolerable rather than crippling.

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 (sends a draft) and pins down the only caller: the draft card when the person clicks Send. It names the sibling send_draft explicitly, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule (agents never have the nonce) and a concrete alternative (send_draft, with the person approving in the app prompt or approval page). This is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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.

Resources