Skip to main content
Glama

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Draft Email

draft_email

Use search_emails or search_linkedin_message_history to find email addresses for prior correspondents. For new contacts whose email you don't have, use find_email. Dict with success, draft_id, provider, and draft details (to, cc, bcc, subject, body)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoOptional list of CC recipients, same format as "to"
toYesList of To recipients. Each is an object with required "email" and optional "name" key. ALWAYS pass a list (even for a single recipient), and ALWAYS pass dicts (not bare strings). Examples: - With name: [{"email": "alice@acme.com", "name": "Alice Smith"}] - Without name: [{"email": "alice@acme.com"}]
bccNoOptional list of BCC recipients, same format as "to"
bodyYesEmail body in Markdown, rendered to HTML at send time for every provider (Gmail, Outlook, Superhuman). Write hyperlinks as [text](url) so the link reads as its anchor text. A bare or parenthesized URL left in the text is usually autolinked by the mail client, so it still clicks through — it just shows the raw URL instead of a label, which is what users mean when they say a link "isn't hyperlinked". Single newlines are preserved as line breaks.
mailboxNoEmail address of a connected mailbox (e.g. 'alice@acme.io'). Omit to use the user's default mailbox. When the user has multiple mailboxes connected, ask which to use rather than guessing — surfacing the choice is the agent's job.
subjectYesEmail subject line
on_behalf_ofNoAn agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already convey the write-but-non-destructive profile, and the description adds useful context: drafts are routed to the connected provider automatically with no provider argument. It doesn't cover permission/auth requirements or whether drafts are later visible in the mailbox, so it stops 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core action and uses structured summary/returns tags so the key facts are scannable. The XML-wrapped structure is slightly heavier than plain prose but every sentence still carries information.

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 7-param tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (success, draft_id, provider, draft details), the provider-routing behavior, and the confirmation-before-send handoff. Nothing an agent needs 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 the schema already carries the recipient shape, markdown body rendering, mailbox selection, and on_behalf_of semantics. The description adds only the meta-note that no provider argument is needed, which is marginal value beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a new email draft') and immediately names the scope (user's connected email account, provider-agnostic routing). It distinguishes itself from send_email and from draft_reply by framing this as net-new draft creation in the connected mailbox.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: confirm with the user before calling send_email, and names the alternatives for address lookup (search_emails, search_linkedin_message_history, find_email) with the condition that selects each. The mailbox param description also tells the agent to ask the user rather than guess when multiple mailboxes exist.

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

All Sliq 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