Skip to main content
Glama
alexneamtu

Gmail MCP

by alexneamtu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_draft

Creates a plain-text Gmail draft in a selected account without sending it, returning draft IDs so you can review or send later.

Instructions

Create a plain-text draft in the selected account, which is the sender; never sends. Returns the draft {id,message:{id,threadId,labelIds}}; pass id to send_draft only after the user asks to send it. Each call creates a new draft, so retries create duplicates. To reply, set threadId and inReplyTo from get_message and keep the subject (with "Re:").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCc email addresses, up to 30.
toYesRecipient email addresses, 1-30.
bccNoBcc email addresses, up to 30; kept hidden from other recipients.
bodyYesPlain-text body, max 60,000 characters. HTML is not rendered.
accountYesAccount alias from list_accounts; selects which mailbox to use.
subjectYesSubject line, single line, max 998 characters.
threadIdNoThread ID to file the draft in when replying; get it from get_message or get_thread.
inReplyToNoMessage-ID header of the message being replied to, including angle brackets, e.g. "<abc@mail.gmail.com>".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / account / description
      Added value: +"Account alias from list_accounts; selects which mailbox to use."
    • addedInput schema / properties / bcc / description
      Added value: +"Bcc email addresses, up to 30; kept hidden from other recipients."
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Added value: +"Plain-text body, max 60,000 characters. HTML is not rendered."
    • addedInput schema / properties / cc / description
      Added value: +"Cc email addresses, up to 30."
    • addedInput schema / properties / inReplyTo / description
      Added value: +"Message-ID header of the message being replied to, including angle brackets, e.g. \"<abc@mail.gmail.com>\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / subject / description
      Added value: +"Subject line, single line, max 998 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / threadId / description
      Added value: +"Thread ID to file the draft in when replying; get it from get_message or get_thread."
    • addedInput schema / properties / to / description
      Added value: +"Recipient email addresses, 1-30."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds concrete consequence ("each call creates a new draft, so retries create duplicates"), confirms it never sends, and discloses the return shape {id,message:{id,threadId,labelIds}} that no output schema provides. Value beyond annotations is real but partially overlaps the idempotency hint.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Dense, front-loaded prose with no filler: creation, non-send guarantee, return shape, downstream handoff, retry caveat, and reply recipe in sequence. Every sentence carries operational information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an 8-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields, the reply workflow, and the duplicate-on-retry hazard. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics: account is the sender, and threadId/inReplyTo are reply-scoped values sourced from get_message, plus the "Re:" subject convention—guidance the schema does not supply.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a plain-text draft") and immediately distinguishes it from its closest sibling with "never sends," which separates it from send_draft. Scope (plain-text, selected account) is explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit routing and sequencing: pass id to send_draft only after the user asks to send, and for replies set threadId/inReplyTo from get_message while keeping the subject. Names the alternative tools and the condition that selects them.

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