Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Workspace MCP Server

Google Workspace MCP Server

by VGdotcom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

draft_email

Create a draft email in Gmail for user review by specifying recipients, subject, and body. Optionally add CC, BCC, or HTML content.

Instructions

Create a new draft email in the user's Gmail account without sending it. Useful for preparing messages for user review.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "draft_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toYes
bccNo
bodyYes
htmlNo
subjectYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it creates a draft, but doesn't specify idempotency, authentication requirements, or potential side effects.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could benefit from a brief structure indicating parameter usage.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the output (draft id etc.) or how to use the html parameter, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no parameter details whatsoever, leaving all 6 parameters (including required ones) unexplained beyond the schema.

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 email without sending, distinguishing it from send_email. It also specifies it's for preparing messages for review, providing a clear purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions 'without sending it' implying not to use for sending, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like send_email or append_content. It lacks when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools