Skip to main content
Glama

delete_draft

Remove unwanted draft emails from Gmail by specifying the draft ID to clear space and maintain organization.

Instructions

Delete a draft

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the draft to delete

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the delete_draft tool: wraps the Gmail API call to delete a draft by ID using the shared handleTool utility.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for delete_draft tool using Zod: requires 'id' string parameter.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to delete")
    },
  • src/index.ts:265-276 (registration)
    Registration of the delete_draft tool on the MCP server, defining name, description, schema, and handler.
    server.tool("delete_draft",
      "Delete a draft",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to delete")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared helper function handleTool used by delete_draft (and other tools) to handle OAuth2 authentication, client creation, and API call execution with error handling.
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        return `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}`
      }
    }
  • Shared helper to format tool responses as MCP content blocks.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting whether deletion is permanent, requires permissions, or has side effects on related resources.

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 very concise with one sentence, but it lacks structure and front-loading of key information. However, it is not verbose and avoids irrelevant details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could mention whether the operation is reversible or if any confirmation is required.

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 parameter 'id' has a clear description in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, but the schema already sufficiently documents the parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'Delete a draft' with a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_draft or send_draft.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_message, trash_message). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or use-case hints.

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