Stalwart Mail MCP

Create a draft

mail_create_draft

Saves an email as a draft in the Drafts folder without sending it, so you can review and send it later from webmail or your phone.

Instructions

Saves a message as a draft in the Drafts folder (does not send). The user can then review it in webmail or on the phone and send it themselves, or mail_send_draft sends it by id. Same parameters as mail_send_email (including replying via in_reply_to_id and attachments).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	Cc — a list of addresses as “name@domain” or “First Last <name@domain>”.
`to`	No	Recipients — a list of addresses as “name@domain” or “First Last <name@domain>”.
`bcc`	No	Bcc — a list of addresses as “name@domain” or “First Last <name@domain>”.
`from`	No	Sender address; default is the address of the signed-in mailbox. Must be one of the account's allowed senders.
`html`	No	Body as HTML (optional; when text is missing it is derived from the HTML).
`text`	No	Message body as plain text (preferred). Write the signature yourself, the server adds none.
`account`	No	Which account: leave empty for the signed-in mailbox, or name a shared mailbox / group you have access to (the part before @ is enough; a full address works too). mail_list_mailboxes shows what exists.
`subject`	No	Subject. A reply gets “Re: …” automatically when it is missing.
`reply_to`	No	Reply-To (where replies should go) — a list of addresses as “name@domain” or “First Last <name@domain>”.
`reply_all`	No	For a reply: also copy the other original recipients.
`attachments`	No	Full paths of files on this computer to attach (max. 25 MB each).
`in_reply_to_id`	No	id of the message you are replying to — sets the thread (In-Reply-To/References), fills in the recipient and subject, marks the original as answered.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context the annotations don't: the write is non-communicating (draft is not sent) and the message remains user-reviewable. It stops short of noting that repeated calls create duplicate drafts (idempotentHint=false) or where the resulting draft id comes from for mail_send_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?

Three sentences, zero waste, and the most important fact (does not send) is front-loaded right after the name. The alternative-tool pointer is placed directly after the workflow explanation.

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 12-param, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: it is a non-sending write, parameters mirror mail_send_email, and there are two follow-up paths. The one real gap is that it never says what comes back (a draft id) which mail_send_draft would need, but overall it is sufficient to call 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters in detail. The description only adds a cross-reference ('same parameters as mail_send_email') and highlights in_reply_to_id and attachments, which is helpful orientation but not new parameter-level meaning. 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+resource combination ('Saves a message as a draft in the Drafts folder') and immediately scopes it against the send path ('does not send'). An agent can distinguish this from mail_send_email and mail_send_draft without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow (user reviews in webmail/phone and sends it themselves) and the alternative tool by name ('mail_send_draft sends it by id'), giving the condition that selects each path. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Create a draft

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools