Skip to main content
Glama

get_draft

Retrieve a specific Gmail draft by its ID to access and review saved email content before sending.

Instructions

Get a specific draft by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the draft to retrieve
includeBodyHtmlNoWhether to include the parsed HTML in the return for each body, excluded by default because they can be excessively large

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:311-331 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_draft' tool using McpServer.tool(), including description, input schema, and inline handler function.
    server.tool("get_draft",
      "Get a specific draft by ID",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to retrieve"),
        includeBodyHtml: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether to include the parsed HTML in the return for each body, excluded by default because they can be excessively large")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.get({ userId: 'me', id: params.id, format: 'full' })
    
          if (data.message?.payload) {
            data.message.payload = processMessagePart(
              data.message.payload,
              params.includeBodyHtml
            )
          }
    
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The core handler logic for 'get_draft': fetches the draft via Gmail API, optionally decodes and processes the message payload (filtering headers, decoding base64 bodies), and formats the JSON response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.get({ userId: 'me', id: params.id, format: 'full' })
    
        if (data.message?.payload) {
          data.message.payload = processMessagePart(
            data.message.payload,
            params.includeBodyHtml
          )
        }
    
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Zod schema defining input parameters for the 'get_draft' tool: required 'id' (draft ID) and optional 'includeBodyHtml' flag.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to retrieve"),
      includeBodyHtml: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether to include the parsed HTML in the return for each body, excluded by default because they can be excessively large")
    },
  • Shared helper function used by get_draft (and other tools) to handle OAuth2 authentication, client creation, API execution, and error handling (especially auth errors).
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        // Check for specific authentication errors
        if (
          error.message?.includes("invalid_grant") ||
          error.message?.includes("refresh_token") ||
          error.message?.includes("invalid_client") ||
          error.message?.includes("unauthorized_client") ||
          error.code === 401 ||
          error.code === 403
        ) {
          return formatResponse({
            error: `Authentication failed: ${error.message}. Please re-authenticate by running: npx @shinzolabs/gmail-mcp auth`,
          });
        }
    
        return formatResponse({ error: `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}` });
      }
    }
  • Recursive helper to process message parts in drafts/messages: decodes base64 bodies (unless HTML and not requested), recurses into parts, filters headers to common ones.
    const processMessagePart = (messagePart: MessagePart, includeBodyHtml = false): MessagePart => {
      if ((messagePart.mimeType !== 'text/html' || includeBodyHtml) && messagePart.body) {
        messagePart.body = decodedBody(messagePart.body)
      }
    
      if (messagePart.parts) {
        messagePart.parts = messagePart.parts.map(part => processMessagePart(part, includeBodyHtml))
      }
    
      if (messagePart.headers) {
        messagePart.headers = messagePart.headers.filter(header => RESPONSE_HEADERS_LIST.includes(header.name || ''))
      }
    
      return messagePart
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature or side effects. It only states the basic purpose, omitting any behavioral specifics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. While very concise, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

As a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or behavior. It lacks completeness for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (get) and resource (draft by ID). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_drafts or get_message, relying on the tool name for differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_drafts for all drafts). The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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