Fetch a single Gmail draft by ID to inspect its content, recipients, or status before sending or editing. Use it when an agent needs the full draft details.
Fetch a single Gmail draft by id
| 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?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the draft is not found.
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, not verbose, but it lacks essential information; it is adequate in length but not optimally informative.
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 simple fetch operation and existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete; it does not mention error scenarios or any behavioral context.
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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain 'user_id' or the format of 'draft_id', leaving the agent without guidance.
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 it fetches a single Gmail draft by ID, using specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'single Gmail draft by id', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_list_drafts.
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 versus alternatives like gmail_list_drafts or gmail_update_draft, nor any context or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.