Re-fetch a Gmail draft by draft_id so the composer can poll for agent edits and keep the draft view current.
Re-fetch the current draft (used by the composer to poll for agent edits).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | ||
| draft_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | No | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| draft_id | Yes | ||
| thread_id | No | ||
| attachments | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (re-fetch draft) but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The description lacks transparency about side effects or prerequisites.
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?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the action and context. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has no annotations and parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not cover when to call the tool, prerequisites, or the impact of the refresh operation. The presence of an output schema slightly reduces the burden, but the description lacks enough context for an agent to use it confidently.
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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'user_id' (optional with default) or 'draft_id' (required), leaving the agent with no guidance on how to populate them correctly.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Re-fetch' and the resource 'current draft'. It also provides context about its use in polling for agent edits, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_draft or send.
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?
The description mentions it is 'used by the composer to poll for agent edits', giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is implied but not directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.