Skip to main content
Glama
churichard

Fluxmail

by churichard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

create_draft

Creates an email draft with recipients, subject, body, and attachments; supports reply drafts by passing replyToMessageId to inherit recipients and subject.

Instructions

Create a draft. For a reply draft, pass replyToMessageId (recipients/subject are derived; replyAll for reply-all).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoRecipients, each "Name <a@x.com>" or "a@x.com"
toNoRecipients, each "Name <a@x.com>" or "a@x.com"
bccNoRecipients, each "Name <a@x.com>" or "a@x.com"
fromNoConnected address or an available send-as address
subjectNoDefaults to "Re: ..." when replying
bodyHtmlNoHTML body
bodyTextNoPlain-text body
replyAllNoWith replyToMessageId: reply to all original recipients
accountIdNoAccount to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected.
attachmentsNo
replyToMessageIdNoMessage being replied to; threads correctly and computes recipients if "to" is omitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / from
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Connected address or an available send-as address",
+  "format": "email",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior ('recipients/subject are derived', 'replyAll for reply-all'), but it does not mention output/return behavior, the fact that nothing is sent, or any side-effect details beyond creating a draft.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the reply-draft qualification is presented immediately in the second sentence, so every part earns its place.

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 the rich schema coverage and the tool's relatively low-risk 'create draft' semantics, the description is largely complete. It could mention what the tool returns or explicitly confirm it does not send, but the combination of name, description, and schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 91%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters in detail. The description adds a small amount of semantic linkage by explaining that replyToMessageId drives derived recipients and subject, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a draft'), making the action unmistakable and differentiating it from siblings like update_draft, send_email, and delete_draft. It also immediately introduces the reply-draft variant, which is a distinct mode of this tool.

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 gives clear situational guidance: for a reply draft, pass replyToMessageId, and use replyAll for a reply-all. It does not explicitly contrast with send_email or update_draft, but the context of drafting versus sending or updating is strongly implied.

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