OrgLines

Mail: Update draft

mail_update_draft

Destructive

Rewrite a saved draft — its recipients, subject, body or files. Take draft_id from mail_list_drafts. Only the fields you pass change; 'attachments' ADDS files, 'remove_attachment_ids' takes stored ones off (ids from mail_list_drafts). Nothing is sent. CONFIRMATION: this tool is PROPOSED, never performed directly. You get status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and a plan_token, and the write happens only after confirm_action.

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": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "mail_update_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No
`to`	No
`body`	No
`subject`	No
`draft_id`	Yes
`attachments`	No	Files to attach, at most 10 and 25 MB in total. Each item is EITHER {from_message_id, part} — an attachment of a message (id from mail_list_messages, part from mail_get_message) — OR {document_id} — one of the caller's own Documents. To attach a file you generated, store it with upload_document_base64 and pass the document_id it returns; raw file content is not accepted here.
`remove_attachment_ids`	No	Stored files to take off the draft — their attachment_id from mail_list_drafts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses partial-update semantics, the asymmetric add-versus-remove attachment behavior, that nothing is sent, and the full propose-then-confirm protocol returning status='confirmation_required' with action_id and plan_token. The destructiveHint=true annotation is consistent with an in-place rewrite of an existing draft.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then id sourcing, then mutation semantics, then the confirmation constraint. The capitalized CONFIRMATION block is emphatic but earns its space given the two-step write flow; a few clauses are telegraphic but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the critical unknowns: id provenance, partial-update behavior, attachment add/remove direction, and the confirmation handshake. It does not clarify whether to/cc replace the existing lists entirely or merge, a minor but real omission.

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 only 29%, so the description carries real weight — it explains that 'attachments' ADDS files while 'remove_attachment_ids' removes stored ones, and where each id comes from. to/cc/subject/body get no semantics (presumably replacement), which is the remaining gap against low schema coverage.

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 ('Rewrite') and resource ('a saved draft') and enumerates the mutable fields (recipients, subject, body, files). Combined with 'Only the fields you pass change' it is clearly a partial-update tool, distinguishably different from mail_save_draft or mail_delete_draft without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete routing: draft_id comes from mail_list_drafts, remove_attachment_ids ids also come from mail_list_drafts, and the write only completes via confirm_action. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' contrast against mail_save_draft or mail_delete_draft, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All OrgLines 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.

Resources

Need Help?