Cherami

Edit saved draft

update_draft

Edit an unsent draft. Supplied fields replace their saved values, recipient and attachment lists as a whole; omitted fields stay unchanged.

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": "update_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No
`to`	No
`bcc`	No
`html`	No	HTML alternative; null clears it. Editing text leaves saved HTML unchanged, so update or clear it too.
`text`	No	Plain-text body; may be empty while drafting. For a forward prepared from source, this is the note placed before the original.
`labels`	No	Labels the sent copy gets when the draft is sent.
`subject`	No
`draft_id`	Yes
`attachments`	No	Files with padded base64 content. An empty array removes all files.
`in_reply_to`	No	Cherami ID of the received or accepted sent message in this inbox being replied to; null clears it. Set recipients and subject yourself, or use source on creation to derive them.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`state`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`inbox_id`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes	Absolute ISO 8601 service timestamp in UTC (Z), with millisecond precision.
`updated_at`	Yes	Absolute ISO 8601 service timestamp in UTC (Z), with millisecond precision.
`sent_message_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / attachments / description

Previous value: -"Replacement list of files, with original bytes as padded base64. Empty clears; omitted keeps existing files on edit."New value: +"Files with padded base64 content. An empty array removes all files."

changedInput schema / properties / html / description

Previous value: -"HTML alternative; null clears it. When editing text, update or clear HTML too if needed."New value: +"HTML alternative; null clears it. Editing text leaves saved HTML unchanged, so update or clear it too."

changedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to / description

Previous value: -"Owned received or accepted sent reply target in this inbox; null clears. Supply recipients/subject or derive them with source on creation."New value: +"Cherami ID of the received or accepted sent message in this inbox being replied to; null clears it. Set recipients and subject yourself, or use source on creation to derive them."

changedInput schema / properties / labels / description

Previous value: -"Initial labels for the eventual sent copy."New value: +"Labels the sent copy gets when the draft is sent."

changedInput schema / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"Plain-text body; may be empty while drafting. For source forwards on creation, this is the introductory note."New value: +"Plain-text body; may be empty while drafting. For a forward prepared from source, this is the note placed before the original."

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the mutation nature is already known. The description goes beyond that by disclosing patch semantics — supplied fields replace saved values, recipient and attachment lists are replaced wholesale, omitted fields are preserved — which is exactly the behavior an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations. It does not address concurrency/conflict or invalid-ID handling, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: purpose is front-loaded, then the replacement/preservation semantics follow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the patch-semantics sentence, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only auth requirements and failure behavior are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 50%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains that to/cc/bcc/attachments replace as a whole and that omitted fields stay unchanged, which is the single most consequential parameter behavior for this tool. This meaningfully compensates for the coverage gap, though it adds nothing about the remaining partially documented fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit an unsent draft'), and the 'unsent' qualifier usefully distinguishes it from sent-message siblings such as update_sent_message_labels and from send_draft. It is clear without needing the schema, though it does not name any sibling explicitly the way the top-tier examples do.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this applies when modifying an already-saved, unsent draft. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no named alternative (e.g. create_draft for new drafts, send_draft to send), and no stated prerequisites.

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

All Cherami 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?