Skip to main content
Glama

create-reply-all-draft

Destructive

Creates a draft that replies to the sender and all recipients of an email, supporting JSON or MIME format.

Instructions

Create a draft to reply to the sender and all recipients of a message in either JSON or MIME format. When using JSON format:

  • Specify either a comment or the body property of the message parameter. Specifying both will return an HTTP 400 Bad Request error.

  • If the original message specifies a recipient in the replyTo property, per Internet Message Format (RFC 2822), you should send the reply to the recipients in the replyTo and toRecipients properties, and not the recipients in the from and toRecipients properties.

  • You can update the draft later to add reply content to the body or change other message properties. When using MIME format:

  • Provide the applicable Internet message headers and the MIME content, all encoded in base64 format in the request body.

  • Add any attachments and S/MIME properties to the MIME content. Send the draft message in a subsequent operation. Alternatively, reply-all to a message in a single action.

💡 TIP: For HTML replies pass Message.body.contentType: 'html' with Message.body.content as HTML. Note: supplying Message.body replaces the whole draft body, so the original quoted history is not included. Specifying both 'comment' and Message.body returns 400. Signatures are added by the Outlook client only, not via Graph.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
messageIdYesPath parameter: messageId
includeHeadersNoInclude response headers (including ETag) in the response metadata
excludeResponseNoExclude the full response body and only return success or failure indication
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but description adds rich behavioral details: JSON vs MIME format behaviors, comment/body conflict, replyTo routing, draft updatability, and tip about HTML and signatures. Covers key traits beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured with main sentence, bullet points for formats, and tip. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers formats, constraints, and tips. Minor gaps: no mention of where draft is saved (Drafts folder) or response structure. Still comprehensive for a complex tool with no output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 75%, but description compensates by explaining the meaning and interaction of Comment and Message.body, and MIME encoding requirements. Adds significant insight beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states: 'Create a draft to reply to the sender and all recipients of a message.' This specific verb+resource combination, along with mention of JSON or MIME format, distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-reply-draft (sender only) and create-forward-draft.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when to use: reply-all scenario. Provides alternatives: 'Alternatively, reply-all to a message in a single action' (pointing to reply-all-mail-message). Also gives constraints: not both comment and body, and RFC 2822 recipient handling.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Softeria/ms-365-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server