himalaya-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

draft_reply

Create a reviewable email reply draft with headers and the quoted original message; it does not send, letting users edit before sending.

Instructions

Generate a reply draft for an email. Returns the reply template with headers and quoted original message. Does NOT send — use send_email to send after user reviews.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "draft_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Email message ID to reply to
`body`	No	Custom reply body text (prepended to quoted original)
`folder`	No	Folder name (default: INBOX)
`account`	No	Account name (uses default if omitted)
`reply_all`	No	Reply to all recipients (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.2Nov 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / id / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

First observedv1.7.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does usefully disclose the non-sending nature plus the return shape (template with headers and quoted original). However, it never says whether a draft is persisted in the mailbox Drafts folder or merely returned as text, and no permission or side-effect profile is given.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint and the alternative. No filler, and the most important limitation (does not send) appears before any optional detail.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of sketching the return value and the non-send contract. It stops short of clarifying draft persistence or how reply_all interacts with the quoted original, which are the remaining unknowns an agent might need.

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 all five parameters including id, body, folder, account, and reply_all are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a light hint that a custom body is prepended to the quoted original, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Generate a reply draft for an email") and immediately disambiguates it from the send path ("Does NOT send"). An agent can distinguish this from send_email and compose_email without opening any 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?

It clearly states the downstream workflow: draft first, then hand off to send_email after user review, which is explicit when-to-use guidance including an alternative. It does not explain when to prefer this over composing a brand-new message via compose_email, so a small routing gap remains.

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