Skip to main content
Glama

create-reply-draft

create-reply-draft
Destructive

Create a draft reply to a message's sender in JSON or MIME format. Handles reply-to recipients per RFC 2822.

Instructions

Create a draft to reply to the sender 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 replyTo is specified in the original message, per Internet Message Format (RFC 2822), you should send the reply to the recipients in replyTo, and not the recipients in from.

  • 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 to a message in a single operation.

šŸ’” 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
confirmNoFor destructive operations when the confirm gate is enabled (MS365_MCP_REQUIRE_CONFIRM=true; off by default). Set to true only after the user has explicitly approved this action. When the gate is on, calls without confirm: true return { error: "confirmation_required" } without touching user data.
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?

The description discloses that the tool creates a draft (mutation), warns about 400 errors for conflicting parameters, explains that Message.body replaces the entire draft body (losing quoted history), and notes that signatures are added by Outlook client. These details go beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true) and schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses bullet points and tips for clarity. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by removing the repetitive 'Specifying both' note.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers essential behavioral aspects, error conditions, and parameter constraints. It assumes some RFC knowledge but is sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 (80%), and the description adds meaningful guidance: explaining the conflict between comment and body, specifying replyTo behavior, and noting MIME base64 encoding. However, it does not elaborate on confirm, includeHeaders, or excludeResponse, though schema descriptions already cover these.

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 the tool creates a draft reply to the sender of a message, distinguishing it from forward drafts, reply-all drafts, and immediate send tools. The verb 'Create' and resource 'reply draft' are specific, and the sibling list includes related but distinct tools like create-forward-draft and create-reply-all-draft.

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?

The description provides explicit context for JSON vs MIME format usage, including constraints on comment and body properties, replyTo handling, and HTML content. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like reply-mail-message for immediate sending, nor does it state prerequisites.

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