msgraph-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

manage_draft

Update fields (subject, body, recipients) in an existing draft or send it. Use after creating a draft.

Instructions

Update and/or send a previously created draft. Provide fields to update, set send=True to send. Use after create_draft and optionally add_attachment_to_draft.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "manage_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No
`to`	No
`bcc`	No
`body`	No
`send`	No
`send_as`	No
`subject`	No
`account_id`	No
`message_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (update and optionally send) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens after sending, multiple updates, permissions). Some transparency is provided but not complete.

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?

Two sentences with clear structure: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage hint. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values. With 9 parameters and no annotations, it lacks explanations for error cases, parameter details, and post-conditions, making it incomplete for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'Provide fields to update' and the send parameter, ignoring explanation of other 7 parameters (cc, to, bcc, body, subject, etc.). It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Update and/or send a previously created draft,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_draft by mentioning 'previously created,' and implies this is for existing drafts.

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?

Provides explicit usage sequence: 'Use after create_draft and optionally add_attachment_to_draft.' Also explains the send parameter's role. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools like send_message.

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