google-workspace-alias-mcp

draft_email

Draft an email specifying recipients, subject, body, and optional CC, BCC, attachments, and send-as alias.

Instructions

Create a draft email

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "draft_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	List of CC recipients
`to`	Yes	List of recipient email addresses
`bcc`	No	List of BCC recipients
`body`	Yes	Email body content
`from`	No	Send-as alias email address
`subject`	Yes	Email subject
`htmlBody`	No	HTML version of the email body
`attachments`	No	List of file paths to attach

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only states 'Create a draft email', which implies a save-to-drafts action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the outcome of creating a draft (e.g., where it is stored). No annotations are provided to supplement this gap.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous content. If 'draft' had been elaborated unnecessarily, it could have been longer, but as-is it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

With 8 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior (e.g., that the draft is saved to the user's drafts folder). The minimal description leaves the agent underinformed about the tool's full scope.

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 8 parameters are described in the input schema with full coverage (100%). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Create a draft email' clearly states the purpose and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_email' which sends rather than drafts. However, it is slightly tautological as it restates the tool name without additional nuance.

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 like 'send_email' or 'send_scheduled_email'. Lacks context on prerequisites, such as requiring authentication or that drafts can be sent later.

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