Skip to main content
Glama

send_draft

Send a pre-written email draft from your Gmail account using its unique ID to complete the email sending process.

Instructions

Send an existing draft

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the draft to send

Implementation Reference

  • Full tool registration including schema, description, and handler function that sends a Gmail draft using the Gmail API drafts.send method. The handler wraps the API call in handleTool for authentication and error handling.
    server.tool("send_draft",
      "Send an existing draft",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to send")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          try {
            const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.send({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { id: params.id } })
            return formatResponse(data)
          } catch (error) {
            return formatResponse({ error: 'Error sending draft, are you sure you have at least one recipient?' })
          }
        })
      }
    )
  • Input schema for send_draft tool: requires 'id' of the draft to send.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to send")
    },
  • Shared helper function used by send_draft (and other tools) to handle OAuth2 authentication, credential validation, Gmail client creation, and API call execution.
    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}`
      }
    }
  • Helper function to format API responses for MCP tool output.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })
  • src/index.ts:338-353 (registration)
    Registration of the send_draft tool on the MCP server.
    server.tool("send_draft",
      "Send an existing draft",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to send")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          try {
            const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.send({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { id: params.id } })
            return formatResponse(data)
          } catch (error) {
            return formatResponse({ error: 'Error sending draft, are you sure you have at least one recipient?' })
          }
        })
      }
    )
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'send' a draft, implying a mutation or write operation, but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, what happens post-send (e.g., draft deletion or status change), or any side effects like notifications. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Send an existing draft'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the outcome.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a 'send' operation (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'send' does, the return value, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented as 'The ID of the draft to send'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without extra description needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Send an existing draft' clearly states the action (send) and resource (draft), but it's vague about what 'send' entails—whether it dispatches an email, publishes content, or another action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_draft' or 'delete_draft' by focusing on sending, but lacks specificity on the outcome or context.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'send_message' for drafts, or if there are prerequisites like the draft being in a certain state. The description alone offers no usage context or exclusions.

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/HitmanLy007/gmail-mcp'

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