Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Capes

Capes

by Dipeshpal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gmail_send_draft

Send an existing Gmail draft and remove it from Drafts immediately. Requires the draft's message ID from search or list.

Instructions

Send an existing draft, then remove it from Drafts. Sends immediately.

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": "gmail_send_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMessage id from gmail_search / gmail_list_drafts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds two non-obvious behavioral facts: sending removes the draft from the Drafts folder, and the send is immediate (no scheduled/undo window). It still doesn't say whether the action can be recalled or what the account/auth context must be.

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 primary action and followed by the side effect and timing note. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description covers the action and its side effect adequately. It stops short of describing failure modes (invalid/already-sent draft id) or return behavior, which would be useful for an open-world send.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in-schema as a message id from gmail_search / gmail_list_drafts. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond that, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Send an existing draft') plus the follow-on effect ('then remove it from Drafts'), which separates it from gmail_create_draft and gmail_send_email. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so the distinction is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

The phrase 'existing draft' implies the precondition (a draft id already obtained via gmail_search / gmail_list_drafts), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer gmail_send_email or gmail_create_draft, and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools