Skip to main content
Glama

create-reply-all-draft

Destructive

Create a draft to reply-all to a message using JSON or MIME format. Specify a comment or body to avoid conflicts.

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true but description adds context: draft can be updated later, mutation is creating a draft not directly destructive. Discloses error conditions (400) and that Graph does not add signatures. Does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is well-structured with bullet points and a tip, but slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., specifying both comment and body returns 400 mentioned twice). The key info is front-loaded but could be more concise.

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?

Given the complexity (nested schema, no output schema), the description covers both JSON and MIME formats, error conditions, replyTo behavior, and tips. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing external info.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is high (75%), but description adds substantial meaning beyond schema: explains comment vs body exclusivity, replyTo handling, MIME base64 encoding, and tips for HTML. Clarifies complex nested parameter behaviors.

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 it creates a draft to reply to the sender and all recipients, differentiating from siblings like create-reply-draft (reply to sender only) and create-forward-draft. It specifies the verb 'create', resource 'draft', and scope 'reply-all'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit guidance on using JSON vs MIME format, constraints on comment vs body, and replyTo behavior. Notes that signatures are added only by the Outlook client. Mentions the alternative of reply-all in a single action, aiding tool selection.

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