Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cfu_mail

cfu_mail

by MrShurukan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

preview_draft

Read-only

Previews a locally prepared email draft by returning its exact content, hash, and send status for verification before sending.

Instructions

Return exact locally prepared content, hash and send status.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "preview_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draft_idYes
account_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful return-content context by naming locally prepared content, hash, and send status, but it does not explain the meaning or possible values of those outputs or any auth/rate-limit 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 tightly worded sentence with no wasted text. It is front-loaded, though its brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description should carry more of the explanatory burden. It names returned fields but does not explain them, does not clarify parameter roles, and does not give usage context, leaving important gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not mention either required parameter, account_id or draft_id. It provides no meaning or format guidance to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states that it returns locally prepared content, a hash, and send status, which gives a partial sense of the operation. However, it never explicitly says this is a draft preview, and it does not clearly differentiate the tool from siblings like prepare_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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use preview_draft versus prepare_draft or send_draft. The implication that previewing is a read-only alternative to sending is left for the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling names.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools