Skip to main content
Glama

YouSpot

by com.youspot

Draft email

create_gmail_draft

Create a DRAFT email in the user's connected Gmail mailbox, addressed to anyone — 'draft an email to jane@acme.com about X'. Nothing is sent: the draft lands in Gmail's Drafts folder for the user to review, edit, and send themselves. Compose a specific subject and a plain-text body (no HTML or markdown) in the user's voice. Use this whenever the user wants an email written to someone else; send_email remains only for mailing the user their own address. Only works on mailboxes connected under a legacy modify grant — current connections are read-only and cannot create drafts; the tool says so if not.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoOptional cc address(es), comma-separated.
toYesThe recipient's email address (comma-separate several).
bodyYesThe plain-text body of the draft.
accountNoEmail address of the connected mailbox to create the draft in. Omit to use the first connected mailbox.
subjectYesThe email subject line.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation, the description discloses the non-sending behavior, the Drafts-folder destination, the composition requirements (plain-text, no HTML/markdown, user's voice), and the legacy-grant dependency with a note that the tool reports when the grant is unavailable. This substantially exceeds what annotations provide.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence contributes distinct value: side effect, composition rules, sibling routing, and access restrictions. There is no filler or repetition of the title or parameter names.

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 five-parameter write operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, when to use it, prerequisites, and even failure signaling. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without checking sibling tools or guessing about send behavior.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by requiring a 'specific subject', prohibiting HTML/markdown in the body, and instructing that the draft be composed in the user's voice.

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 the specific verb and resource: 'Create a DRAFT email in the user's connected Gmail mailbox, addressed to anyone.' It also distinguishes the operation from sending by stating 'Nothing is sent' and placing the result in Gmail's Drafts folder, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like send_email.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use this whenever the user wants an email written to someone else; send_email remains only for mailing the user their own address.' It also states a prerequisite and limitation: the tool only works on mailboxes connected under a legacy modify grant, and current read-only connections cannot create drafts.

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

All YouSpot toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are scoped to a distinct resource and action, and descriptions do a good job separating close pairs like search_connections vs ask_about_connections or get_my_linkedin_posts vs linkedin_analytics. However, the multiple deletion tools (delete_graph_object, delete_graph_objects, purge_graph_object) and the several file-reading tools are easy to confuse without reading the descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as create_, get_, list_, search_, send_, and delete_. A handful of noun-phrase outliers like linkedin_analytics, mutual_connections, top_message_correspondents, and what_needs_attention break the pattern, so it is highly consistent but not perfect.

Tool Count1/5

64 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the typical well-scoped 3-15 tool range and even beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the server covers many integrations, this many tools creates a heavy navigation burden and would be better split into focused servers per domain.

Completeness3/5

Core graph/CRM operations and read-side integration coverage are strong, with search, get, list, and create tools across most domains. However, there are notable dead ends: no delete_calendar_event, no tracker management beyond create_tracker, and set_follow_up explicitly lacks a read-back query tool, so some natural user requests cannot be completed through the toolset.

Resources