Skip to main content
Glama
flt-sudo

gmail-mcp-server

by flt-sudo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create Gmail draft

gmail_create_draft

Create a plain-text email draft saved to your Gmail Drafts folder without sending it. Specify recipients, subject, and body; requires modify or send access.

Instructions

Create a plain-text draft (saved to the account's Drafts folder; nothing is sent). Works without the send scope; needs access "modify" or "send" (gmail.modify).

Args:

  • to (string[], required), cc (string[], optional), bcc (string[], optional): recipient addresses.

  • subject (string, required), body (string, required): plain text.

  • account (string, optional): email or alias. Omit for the default account.

Returns: the draft id, its message id, and the account it was created in.

Examples:

  • {"to": ["alice@example.com"], "subject": "Draft: proposal", "body": "First pass..."}

  • {"to": ["b@x.com"], "subject": "Hi", "body": "...", "account": "personal"}

Error Handling: expired credentials return a re-auth instruction naming the account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients.
toYesRecipient email addresses.
bccNoBCC recipients.
bodyYesPlain-text draft body.
accountNoEmail or alias of the account to use. Omit to use the default account. Call gmail_list_accounts if unsure.
subjectYesDraft subject.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the draft is persisted to Drafts, requires modify/send scope, returns draft id/message id/account, and handles expired credentials with re-auth instructions. This gives the agent a solid model of side effects, auth needs, and failure behavior.

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?

The description is well-organized with a one-sentence purpose, grouped parameters, return value note, examples, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the most important behavioral information and every section earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given there is no output schema, the description fully covers return values, required/optional parameters, examples, account selection, and error behavior. An agent has enough information to construct valid calls and interpret results without missing critical context.

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 baseline is 3. The description mostly restates schema details, though the examples add concrete usage patterns and clarify that 'account' can be an alias or omitted for the default account. This is helpful but not substantial new meaning.

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 names a specific action and resource: Create a plain-text draft saved to Drafts, with the explicit clarification that nothing is sent. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_send_message and gmail_reply_to_thread.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool by noting drafts are saved but not sent and by specifying auth scope requirements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the distinction from sending is well implied.

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