Fetches a Gmail draft by ID and returns its parsed headers, safe Markdown body, and attachments. Read-only access lets you inspect draft content before sending.
Fetches a Gmail draft by ID and returns its parsed headers, body (safe Markdown) and attachments. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes | Gmail draft ID from gmail_list_drafts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description restates 'Read-only' and adds useful return context (parsed headers, safe Markdown body, attachments), but it does not cover error behavior, permissions, or attachment representation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. 'Read-only' is redundant with annotations, but the overall structure is tight and immediately useful.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's high-level return summary is important and mostly sufficient for a one-parameter read tool. It lacks details such as not-found behavior or how attachments are represented, which keeps it just short of fully complete.
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 100%, and the only parameter, draft_id, is documented as coming from gmail_list_drafts. The description adds only 'by ID' and does not provide format or syntax details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: fetches a Gmail draft by ID. It also names the return contents, and the ID scoping clearly distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete/send draft siblings.
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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when a draft ID is already known, and the schema points to gmail_list_drafts as the ID source. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus gmail_list_drafts or gmail_get_message_details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.