Send a previously composed Gmail draft by draft ID through mcp-template, delivering a saved message as the final email.
Send a previously-composed Gmail draft
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | ||
| draft_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sent_at | Yes | ||
| thread_id | No | ||
| message_id | Yes |
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, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether sending deletes the draft, required authentication, or side effects. Only the basic action is described.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, given the lack of parameter explanation, it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.
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?
With no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits prerequisites (e.g., draft must exist), success behavior, and differentiation from sibling tools like gmail_composer.send.
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 the description does not explain the 'draft_id' or 'user_id' parameters beyond their names. The description adds no semantics to what the schema already shows.
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 action ('Send') and resource ('previously-composed Gmail draft'). It differentiates from sibling tools like gmail_composer.send (sends new email) and gmail_discard_draft (discards draft).
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 implies use when you have a draft ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like gmail_composer.send or gmail_discard_draft. No when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.