Skip to main content
Glama
googlarz

Proton Mail Bridge MCP

by googlarz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_forward_draft

Stage a forward draft for an existing email with quoted body and attachments, returning a draftId to review before sending.

Instructions

Create a forward draft for an existing email, pre-filling the original message as quoted body and preserving its attachments. Use when you have an emailId and want to stage a forward for review before sending. Prefer forward_email to send immediately without saving. Returns a draftId for later update or send via send_draft.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients, comma-separated.
toYesForward recipient list, comma-separated.
bccNoBCC recipients, comma-separated.
bodyNoOptional message before the forwarded content.
fromNoStore this draft under this address instead of the Bridge login's default (e.g. an additional configured account address). Falls back to the primary account if the address isn't a configured account.
notesNoOptional local note for the draft.
isHtmlNoStore body as HTML.
emailIdYesOriginal email id.
attachmentsNoAttachments with base64 encoded content.
syncToRemoteNoWhether to sync the draft to the Proton Drafts mailbox when IMAP is available.
includeAttachmentsNoInclude the original email's attachments in the draft.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.37
    • addedInput schema / properties / from
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Store this draft under this address instead of the Bridge login's default (e.g. an additional configured account address). Falls back to the primary account if the address isn't a configured account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / includeAttachments
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Include the original email's attachments in the draft.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Addedv1.13.11
  4. Removedv1.13.11
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations (only destructiveHint=false), the description reveals non-obvious behavior: the original message is quoted, attachments are preserved, the action does not send immediately, and a draftId is returned for later use. This is useful behavioral context, though it could additionally mention sync behavior or effects on the original email.

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 four concise sentences with no filler: purpose first, then usage trigger, alternative routing, and return value. Every sentence carries meaningful guidance for tool selection and invocation.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, which sibling to prefer, and what it returns. The schema fully documents parameters. Minor omissions like sync defaults and attachment behavior are already partly handled in the schema and don't block correct use.

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?

All 11 parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage. The description names emailId in context and mentions the returning draftId, but it does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the specific action: create a forward draft for an existing email, with concrete behavioral details like pre-filling the original message as quoted body and preserving attachments. It also distinguishes itself from forward_email by explicitly naming that sibling and contrasting 'stage for review' versus 'send immediately.'

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you have an emailId and want to stage a forward for review before sending'), when not to use it, and which alternative to prefer ('Prefer forward_email to send immediately'). It also gives the downstream action: update or send via send_draft.

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