Skip to main content
Glama
googlarz

Proton Mail Bridge MCP

by googlarz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_reply_draft

Create a reply draft for an email with pre-filled To, Subject, and quoted body, returning a draftId for review before sending.

Instructions

Create a reply draft for a specific email, pre-filling To, Subject, and quoted body from the original message. Use when you have an emailId and want to stage the reply for review before sending. Prefer create_thread_reply_draft when you only have a threadId. Prefer reply_to_email to send immediately. Returns a draftId.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoAdditional CC recipients, comma-separated.
bccNoAdditional BCC recipients, comma-separated.
bodyYesReply body to prepend.
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.
replyAllNoReply to all original recipients.
attachmentsNoAttachments with base64 encoded content.
syncToRemoteNoWhether to sync the draft to the Proton Drafts mailbox when IMAP is available.

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. Addedv1.17.0
  3. Removedv1.13.11
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint:false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool pre-fills fields, stages for review (does not send), and returns a draftId. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the non-sending, staging 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then routing guidance, then return value. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (10 params), but schema covers all parameters and the description gives clear purpose and routing. It mentions return value (draftId) and staging behavior. It doesn't explain side effects like syncing to remote, but those are in the schema, and with 100% coverage, the description needn't repeat them.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail (e.g., how 'from' or 'syncToRemote' behave) beyond what schema already provides, 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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a reply draft for a specific email, pre-filling To, Subject, and quoted body. It names the exact resource (emailId) and action, and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning create_thread_reply_draft and reply_to_email.

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 says when to use (when you have an emailId and want to stage a reply) and when to prefer alternatives (threadId → create_thread_reply_draft; immediate send → reply_to_email). This is a model of clear routing.

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