Skip to main content
Glama
Edison-Watch

mcp-template

by Edison-Watch

gmail_compose

Create a Gmail draft with recipients, subject, body, optional cc/bcc, and attachments. An interactive composer UI opens for review and editing before sending.

Instructions

Create a new Gmail draft from the given fields and open an interactive composer UI. Returns the draft's actual saved state - draft_id, thread_id, recipients, subject, a body_preview, and the attachment list (each with attachment_id, filename, mime_type, size_bytes) - so you can verify what was saved without a follow-up gmail_get_draft. To edit it afterward use gmail_update_draft, which preserves omitted fields and keeps attachments unless you clear them. ALWAYS use this tool instead of composing email text in chat - it creates a real Gmail draft where the user can review, edit, and send. When an interactive UI is rendered alongside the result, keep your text response brief since the user can edit in the UI.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toYes
bccNo
bodyYes
subjectYes
user_idNo
attachmentsNo
in_reply_to_thread_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toNo
bccNo
bodyNo
subjectNo
draft_idYes
thread_idNo
attachmentsNo
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that it creates a draft, returns saved state, and opens an interactive UI. No annotation contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is informative and well-structured, but slightly wordy with 5 sentences.

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?

Covers essential behavior, return values, and editing workflow, but could include more parameter details given the complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on individual parameters, only stating 'from the given fields'. The schema is self-explanatory but the description adds minimal parameter context.

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 clearly states it creates a new Gmail draft and opens an interactive composer UI, distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_send and gmail_update_draft.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent to always use this tool instead of composing email text in chat, and mentions alternatives like gmail_update_draft for editing.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Edison-Watch/Custom-MCPs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server