Skip to main content
Glama
codefuturist

Email MCP Server

by codefuturist
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Save draft

save_draft

Save an email draft to the Drafts folder so you can compose over time and send it later with send_draft. Retrieve saved drafts by listing the Drafts mailbox.

Instructions

Save an email draft to the Drafts folder. Compose over time, then use send_draft to send it. Use list_emails with the Drafts mailbox to see saved drafts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients
toNoRecipient email addresses (can be empty for drafts)
bccNoBCC recipients
bodyYesEmail body content
htmlNoSend as HTML (default: plain text)
accountYesAccount name from list_accounts
subjectYesEmail subject
referencesNoFull References chain for threading (original references plus its Message-ID)
in_reply_toNoMessage-ID for threading (from get_email)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedInput schema / properties / bcc / items / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / cc / items / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
    • addedInput schema / properties / references
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Full References chain for threading (original references plus its Message-ID)",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / to / items / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
  2. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether saving overwrites/replaces an existing draft, whether repeated saves create duplicates, or what identifying handle comes back for later sending.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the follow-on/retrieval guidance ordered logically after it.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow (save, then send, then list). Its one notable gap is the return value: with no output schema, the agent is not told whether a draft identifier is returned, and must instead infer retrieval via list_emails.

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 100%, so all nine parameters (including threading fields in_reply_to and references) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (save an email draft) plus the destination (Drafts folder), and explicitly names the sibling send_draft as the follow-on action, distinguishing persistence from sending.

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?

Clearly frames the use case ('compose over time, then use send_draft to send it') and routes to list_emails with the Drafts mailbox for retrieval. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., use send_email when you already have the final content), so it stops 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