nylas_list_draftsList draft emails for the connected account. Nylas v3: GET /v3/grants/{grant_id}/drafts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max drafts to return. | |
| grant_id | No | Connected-account grant id. Overrides NYLAS_GRANT_ID for this call. | |
| page_token | No | Pagination cursor (next_cursor from a prior page). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description only repeats the endpoint and does not add behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens with large result sets.
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?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) with no wasted words, stating purpose first and then the API endpoint.
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?
Given the simple list operation, annotations, and schema covering parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about return format or pagination handling.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are adequate in the schema; the tool description does not add extra meaning for parameters like limit or page_token.
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 (list) and resource (draft emails), and distinguishes from siblings like nylas_create_draft or nylas_list_messages by specifying 'drafts'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as nylas_list_messages for other email types, or when pagination is needed.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: create vs list vs get for specific entities like draft, event, calendar, contact, grant, message, folder. There is no overlap, as even similar verbs like 'list' are paired with unique nouns. Agents can easily select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a uniform 'nylas_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case, with clear and predictable verbs (create, get, list, send) and nouns (draft, event, calendar, etc.). The naming is fully consistent across all 15 tools.
With 15 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Nylas integration covering email, calendar, and contacts. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count falls comfortably within the ideal range of 3-15 tools.
The tool set covers reading and limited creation (drafts, events) but lacks update and delete operations for all entities, as well as create for contacts. This leaves notable gaps for full lifecycle management, though core workflows like listing and fetching are present.