Retrieve your Gmail drafts, newest first, with an optional limit of 1 to 100 results (default 20). Use it to review or manage unsent emails before sending.
List drafts, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-100 (default 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already tell the agent this is a safe, non-destructive read against external data. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — results are sorted newest first — but says nothing about pagination, whether archived sent-drafts appear, or result volume.
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?
One short sentence with the resource first and the ordering constraint second. Every word earns its place; nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
For a zero-required-parameter read tool of low complexity, with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering the only parameter, the description is nearly sufficient. Minor omissions (pagination or whether more than `limit` results exist) keep it from a 5.
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?
There is a single optional parameter (limit) with 100% schema description coverage already stating the 1-100 range and default of 20. The description adds no extra meaning about the limit, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("List drafts") and adds the ordering guarantee ("newest first"), which clearly separates it from gmail_create_draft, gmail_send_draft, and gmail_delete_draft. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus gmail_search, which can also surface draft content, nor any exclusion or precondition (e.g., mailbox scope). The usage is inferable from the verb but the description provides no actual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.