Create a Gmail draft to compose emails without sending. Define recipients, subject, and body to save an unsent email draft for later review.
Create a Gmail draft without sending. SMTP has no draft API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| html | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| account_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that the operation does not send the email and that SMTP lacks a draft API. It does not mention whether the draft is persisted, what authentication or permissions are needed, what side effects occur, or how the draft interacts with the sibling mail_drafts tool.
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 efficiently short, consisting of two meaningful sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the SMTP note adds relevant context without excess verbosity. It earns high marks for conciseness, though a little more detail on behavior would not hurt.
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 7 parameters and zero annotations, the description is under-equipped for correct use. It does not explain required account context, email address formats, the html/body relationship, or expected output. While an output schema exists so return format need not be described, operational context is still largely missing.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the 7 parameters. With no parameter explanations in either the schema or description, the agent is left to infer semantics purely from field names like html, body, and account_id. This is a significant gap for correct invocation, especially regarding the relationship between html and body and how account_id is resolved.
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 verb and resource: 'Create a Gmail draft without sending.' This is specific and distinct from the sibling mail_send tool, reinforcing that no message is transmitted. The additional note about SMTP lacking a draft API further explains why this operation exists as a separate tool.
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?
The phrase 'without sending' implies the tool is for preparing drafts rather than transmitting email, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like mail_send or mail_drafts, nor does it provide explicit conditions for when to choose this tool over those siblings. The SMTP note hints at constraints but does not offer actionable routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.