Skip to main content
Glama

create-reply-draft

Destructive

Create a draft reply to an email message in JSON or MIME format, specifying comment or body content.

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.

💡 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 already indicate non-read-only and destructive nature. Description adds valuable context: body replacement discards quoted history, signatures are client-added, HTTP 400 for conflicting parameters, and that MIME content must be base64 encoded. These details aid correct invocation beyond annotation hints.

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?

Description is moderately concise and well-structured, with clear sections for JSON and MIME formats and a tip. It front-loads the core purpose. Could be slightly trimmed without losing key information, but generally efficient.

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 no output schema and the tool's complexity (two formats, constraints, nested parameters), the description covers essential aspects: format selection, parameter constraints, follow-up actions (update draft or send), and error conditions. It is reasonably complete for a draft-creation tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is high (75%), with many properties already described. Description adds meaning for the required 'body' parameter by explaining JSON/MIME usage and constraints, but does not significantly enhance understanding for other parameters like 'messageId' or 'includeHeaders'. The description mostly reiterates schema information.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a draft to reply to the sender of a message' in either JSON or MIME format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-forward-draft and create-reply-all-draft, and mentions alternative direct reply. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description provides explicit guidance on when to use JSON vs MIME format, constraints like specifying only comment or body (not both), and mentions that drafts can be updated later or sent directly. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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