Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Google Multi-Account Server

MCP Google Multi-Account Server

by bkbaheti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gmail_create_draft_with_attachment

Create a draft email with file attachments from base64 data or local paths. Review and send later, with up to 25MB total attachment size.

Instructions

Create a draft email with file attachments. Each attachment can provide base64-encoded data directly OR a local file path (the server reads the file from disk). The draft can be reviewed and sent later. Requires compose or full scope. Max 25MB total attachment size.

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>",
      "attachments": "<attachments>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_create_draft_with_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC email address(es)
toYesRecipient email address(es), comma-separated for multiple
bccNoBCC email address(es)
bodyYesEmail body (plain text, or HTML when bodyFormat="html")
subjectYesEmail subject
threadIdNoThread ID to reply in
accountIdYesThe Google account ID, alias, or email
inReplyToNoMessage-ID being replied to
bodyFormatNoBody content type. "text" (default) sends as text/plain with RFC 3676 format=flowed so clients reflow paragraphs instead of rendering hard wraps. "html" sends as text/html for HTML-formatted bodies.
referencesNoReferences header for threading
attachmentsYesArray of attachments. Each must have either "data" (base64) or "filePath" (local path), not both.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.3

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: attachment data can be base64 or file path (server reads from disk), draft is not sent immediately, requires compose/full scope, and max 25MB size. These go beyond schema details, but it doesn't mention return values or error handling.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds distinct information: purpose, attachment methods, lifecycle, auth, and size limit. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, attachment mechanics, authorization, and size constraints, which is strong for a create operation. However, since there is no output schema, it omits what the API returns (e.g., draft ID), leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'data OR filePath' distinction (explicitly stating OR and that the server reads the file) and introducing the 25MB total limit, which is not in 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's purpose: 'Create a draft email with file attachments.' It differentiates from sibling gmail_create_draft by explicitly mentioning attachments, and clarifies the draft can be reviewed and sent later, distinguishing it from send tools.

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 implies usage context by specifying it creates drafts (not sending) and supports attachments, which hints at when to use this over plain gmail_create_draft. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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