Update an existing Gmail draft with new recipients, subject, body, CC, BCC, or attachments.
Persist the current composer fields onto an existing Gmail draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| draft_id | Yes | ||
| attachments | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| draft_id | Yes | ||
| thread_id | No | ||
| attachments | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only says 'persist' without explaining behavioral traits like overwrite behavior, auth requirements, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from more detail without significant bloat.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context on return values, errors, or any additional behavioral detail needed given 8 parameters and no annotations.
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 description adds no explanation for any of the 8 parameters beyond their names.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('persist') and resource ('current composer fields onto an existing Gmail draft'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send or discard.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., save_draft vs send), or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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