draft_outreach_emailSave a draft email subject and/or body onto one of the user's leads. This only stores the draft for human review — it does NOT send anything. A human sends from the dashboard. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead_id | Yes | Lead id to draft for (from search_outreach_leads). | |
| email_body | No | Draft email body. | |
| subject_line | No | Draft subject line. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "text"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-readonly mutation (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the description's statement that it is non-destructive adds little. However, the description does clearly disclose the draft-only, non-sending behavior, which is valuable context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by clarifying constraints. The sentence about human sending is a bit redundant with the non-sending statement but not significantly so. It earns a 4 for being brief and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with only three parameters and one required, and the description covers the key behavior (draft only, no send, requires auth). The output schema is absent, but the tool likely doesn't need one; a simple success response is expected. The authentication note adds context, though no details about specific permissions are given, which is acceptable given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters, including a source hint for lead_id. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal parameter-level detail. The description's mention of 'subject and/or body' aligns with the parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (save a draft email), the resource (user's leads), and the scope (subject and/or body), distinguishing it from send_invoice and update_outreach_lead_status. It explicitly notes it is only a draft and does not send, which separates it from any sending tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use it (saving drafts for human review) and provides a key exclusion ('does NOT send anything', 'human sends from the dashboard'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but given the sibling list, no other tool drafts emails, so the usage context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.