Prubex

Send a draft

mail_send_draft

Sends a saved draft as it is now. Use it after the user has reviewed a draft from mail_create_draft. Returns sent. It can return pending_approval: tell the user a person must approve it in Prubex, and do not retry. If held, a person approves the draft as it is at that moment; if it changes before then, the approval fails. Example: { "draft_id": "msg_…" }.

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_send_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft_id`	Yes	A draft's message id (`msg_…`): `draft.id` from mail_create_draft, or an `id` from mail_list_drafts. Editing a draft can change it on some providers; use the latest.
`idempotency_key`	No	Any unique string. Retrying with the same key within 24 h never repeats the action.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes	What happened, in words for the user.
`thread_id`	No
`account_id`	Yes
`expires_at`	No	When held: when the request expires.
`message_id`	No	The sent message, when the provider reports it.
`review_url`	No	When held: where a person approves it in Prubex.
`approval_id`	No	When held: pass it to approvals_get later.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two possible outcomes (`sent`, `pending_approval`), the exact instruction not to retry when held, and the approval-timing semantics (approval applies to the draft as it is at that moment, and later edits cause the approval to fail). This is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a non-idempotent, open-world send.

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?

Front-loads the action and then the usage condition, followed by the return/approval caveats and a compact example. Every sentence carries operational meaning, with no filler.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still surfaces the critical `pending_approval` branch and the no-retry rule, which are the non-obvious parts of this tool. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 draft_id and idempotency_key are already fully documented, including the staleness warning about editing drafts. The description's example payload only reinforces the required draft_id and says nothing about the optional idempotency_key, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 saved draft') and pins the scope with 'as it is now', which distinguishes it from creating or editing a draft. An agent can tell this is the dispatch step for an existing draft without opening the 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 explicit timing: 'Use it after the user has reviewed a draft from mail_create_draft', which anchors the workflow to a named sibling. It does not explicitly contrast with mail_send or mail_validate_send, so the alternative-routing guidance is incomplete but the positive context is clear.

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

All Prubex 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?