Send an email draft only after user approval: first call returns a preview and confirmation token, second call with the token delivers via SMTP.
Prepare or SMTP-send a Drafts UID. First call returns preview + confirm_token. After the user agrees, call again with confirm_token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | No | UID in the Drafts folder | |
| account_id | No | Account id from list_accounts; omit when only one mailbox is linked | |
| confirm_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the two-phase prepare/send behavior and confirmation token, but with no annotations it does not state irreversible delivery, required permissions, or what side effects the first call has.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler; the action and sequence are front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides sufficient context for the two-step flow and mentions the preview and confirm_token return. It lacks detail about the second call's return value or error cases, but remains adequate for the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
uid and account_id have basic schema descriptions, and confirm_token is explained as being returned from the first call. However, confirm_token has no schema description and no parameter is marked required, though it is logically required for the send step.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly identifies the tool as preparing or SMTP-sending a Drafts UID, which distinguishes it from sibling send tools like send_email, send_reply, send_forward, and save_draft.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes the two-call workflow explicitly and mentions the need for user agreement and confirm_token. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling send tools, but the procedure is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.