MCP Emails

Save an edited draft

draft_editor_save

Idempotent

Save the fields a person edited in the draft editor. Every field is optional and an omitted one is left exactly as stored, unlike the draft tool's 'update', which requires the whole body. No signature is applied: the text being saved is the text the person was shown, which already carries one if the inbox has one. Nothing is sent. On IMAP the save returns a NEW draft_id and the old one stops resolving. A draft that has attachments cannot be saved here on IMAP or Gmail, because the save would rebuild the message without them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	Replacement recipient list. Omit to keep the stored one; pass [] to clear it.
`to`	No	Replacement recipient list. Omit to keep the stored one; pass [] to clear it.
`bcc`	No	Replacement recipient list. Omit to keep the stored one; pass [] to clear it.
`inbox`	No	The inbox's email address, as an alternative to inbox_id.
`subject`	No	Replacement subject line. Omit to keep the stored one.
`draft_id`	Yes	The draft to act on. On IMAP a draft_id changes on every save, so use the one the most recent draft result returned.
`inbox_id`	No	The inbox holding the draft. Omit when the workspace has one inbox.
`body_text`	No	Replacement plain-text body, written exactly as given. When the draft has an HTML part it is regenerated from this text, so both parts of the message say the same thing. Omit to keep the stored body.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`card`	No	Which card this envelope renders: 'draft_editor' or 'receipt'.
`state`	No	Where the draft stands: editing, sent, or error.
`dashboard_url`	No	Absolute link to the signed-in dashboard. Always present, and the one link that still works when the rest of the envelope cannot be parsed.
`schema_version`	No	Card envelope version. A client that does not know this version should fall back to dashboard_url.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that no signature is applied, nothing is sent, IMAP saves return a new draft_id and invalidate the old one, and attachment-bearing drafts are unsupported. These are important behavioral traits that the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

The description front-loads the core purpose and then packs only decision-relevant constraints into dense, non-repetitive sentences. No filler or unnecessary restatement of plain schema facts is present.

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 partial-update tool with an output schema and sibling tools, the description covers semantics, limitations, identity behavior, and distinctions from alternatives. An agent has enough information to select and safely invoke it without additional inference.

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?

The schema already documents each parameter at 100% coverage, so the bar for extra value is higher. The description usefully generalizes the omit/keep semantics and adds context around body_text and IMAP draft_id behavior, though much of that is also present in the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific operation: saving only the fields a person edited in the draft editor. It also differentiates itself from the draft tool's 'update' operation, which requires the whole body, so an agent cannot confuse it with the alternative.

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?

The description explains when this tool is appropriate by contrasting omitted fields with the draft tool's whole-body update, and it gives explicit exclusions: drafts with attachments cannot be saved here on IMAP or Gmail, and nothing is sent. This gives clear routing and precondition information.

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

All MCP Emails tools Inspect

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.