Skip to main content
Glama
ZatesloFL

Google Workspace MCP Server

by ZatesloFL
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Hybrid

draft_gmail_message

Generate draft emails in Gmail with subject, body, and optional recipients. Supports new drafts or replies within threads, ensuring proper email threading with Message-IDs.

Instructions

Creates a draft email in the user's Gmail account. Supports both new drafts and reply drafts.

Args: user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required. subject (str): Email subject. body (str): Email body (plain text). to (Optional[str]): Optional recipient email address. Can be left empty for drafts. cc (Optional[str]): Optional CC email address. bcc (Optional[str]): Optional BCC email address. thread_id (Optional[str]): Optional Gmail thread ID to reply within. When provided, creates a reply draft. in_reply_to (Optional[str]): Optional Message-ID of the message being replied to. Used for proper threading. references (Optional[str]): Optional chain of Message-IDs for proper threading. Should include all previous Message-IDs.

Returns: str: Confirmation message with the created draft's ID.

Examples: # Create a new draft draft_gmail_message(subject="Hello", body="Hi there!", to="user@example.com")

# Create a draft with CC and BCC
draft_gmail_message(
    subject="Project Update",
    body="Here's the latest update...",
    to="user@example.com",
    cc="manager@example.com",
    bcc="archive@example.com"
)

# Create a reply draft
draft_gmail_message(
    subject="Re: Meeting tomorrow",
    body="Thanks for the update!",
    to="user@example.com",
    thread_id="thread_123",
    in_reply_to="<message123@gmail.com>",
    references="<original@gmail.com> <message123@gmail.com>"
)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bccNoOptional BCC email address.
bodyYesEmail body (plain text).
ccNoOptional CC email address.
in_reply_toNoOptional Message-ID of the message being replied to.
referencesNoOptional chain of Message-IDs for proper threading.
subjectYesEmail subject.
thread_idNoOptional Gmail thread ID to reply within.
toNoOptional recipient email address.
user_google_emailYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Tool Definition Quality

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation and specifies the return format. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether drafts are saved automatically to Gmail. The examples help but don't fully compensate for missing behavioral details.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, examples). While comprehensive, some information like the full parameter list could be considered redundant given the high schema coverage. The examples are helpful but make the description longer than strictly necessary.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but high schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides good coverage. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter relationships, and includes practical examples. However, it lacks information about authentication, error handling, and Gmail-specific constraints that would be valuable for a mutation operation.

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?

With 89% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds valuable context by explaining the relationship between thread_id and reply drafts, and clarifying that 'to' can be empty for drafts. The examples provide practical usage patterns that enhance understanding 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 specific action ('Creates a draft email') and resource ('in the user's Gmail account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_gmail_message. It explicitly mentions support for both new drafts and reply drafts, providing comprehensive purpose information.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (creating drafts vs. sending emails) and distinguishes between new drafts and reply drafts. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the distinction from send_gmail_message is implied.

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/ZatesloFL/google_workspace_mcp'

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