Skip to main content
Glama
churichard

Fluxmail

by churichard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_draft

Replace the full content of an existing email draft, including recipients, subject, body, and attachments, to revise it before sending.

Instructions

Replace the content of an existing draft (full replacement, not a patch).

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
draftIdYes
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that this is a full replacement, implying that omitted fields are cleared or overwritten, which is essential for correct invocation. It does not go into error cases or reversibility, but the key mutation semantics are clearly stated.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. The core action and the critical 'not a patch' distinction are front-loaded, making it easy to parse and act on.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It explains the replacement behavior but leaves ambiguity about edge cases (e.g., handling attachments if omitted, interaction with replyToMessageId, behavior if draftId is invalid). The schema covers most parameter meanings, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of annotations or output schema.

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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'full replacement' means any supplied parameter overwrites the draft's corresponding content, and unprovided parameters are likely cleared. This directly informs how an agent should construct the parameter set (providing all desired fields), going beyond the per-parameter schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('existing draft'), and explicitly differentiates from a patch operation with 'full replacement, not a patch'. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_draft and modify_emails without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'existing draft' implies its use case (updating an already-created draft) and the contrast 'not a patch' suggests it is for full rewrites rather than incremental edits. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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