Skip to main content
Glama
kojott

mailmcp

Create draft

create_draft

Save an email draft to the Drafts folder without sending; the owner reviews and sends it later, ideal for preparing replies with attachments.

Instructions

Saves a draft into the Drafts folder of the account. Nothing is sent; the owner reviews and sends it from their mail client (or asks you to send_draft). Attachments: existing mailbox attachments, files from upload_attachment/request_upload, or inline content. This is the preferred way to prepare replies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toYesRecipient addresses
bccNo
htmlNoOptional HTML body (scripts are stripped); when absent it is rendered from text
textYesPlain-text body
quoteNoQuote the original under the reply (default true when replying)
accountYesAccount id from list_accounts
subjectYes
attachmentsNoFiles to attach: existing mailbox attachments, uploaded files (folder "mailmcp-uploads"), inline content, or local paths
in_reply_to_uidNouid of the message being answered: sets In-Reply-To/References, keeps the Re: subject and quotes the original. Prefer reply_draft / reply_send.
in_reply_to_folderNoFolder/label path. Defaults to All Mail on Gmail, INBOX elsewhere.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv0.8.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / maxLength
      Added value: +512
    • removedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / minimum
      Removed value: -1
    • changedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / uid / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / maxItems
      Added value: +20
    • addedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / maxLength
      Added value: +512
    • removedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / minimum
      Removed value: -1
    • changedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to_uid / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"string"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: nothing is sent, the owner reviews and sends it, and attachments can come from multiple sources. It also notes that scripts are stripped from HTML, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important fact (saves a draft, nothing is sent). Every sentence earns its place: the non-sending behavior, attachment sources, and the preferred-use guidance. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it doesn't do, how attachments work, and when to prefer it. It doesn't explain return values, but with no output schema that's less critical. The main gap is not explaining what happens after saving (e.g., whether a draft ID is returned), but the description is otherwise complete for an agent to decide when to use it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the overall purpose of the draft (preparing replies), clarifying that attachments can be existing mailbox attachments, uploaded files, or inline content, and noting that the owner sends it later. It doesn't repeat every parameter but adds context for the key ones.

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 states a specific verb ('Saves a draft'), a specific resource (Drafts folder of the account), and clarifies the non-sending behavior. It also distinguishes itself from send_draft and reply_draft, making it clear this is the preparation step, not the sending step.

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 'This is the preferred way to prepare replies' and mentions that the owner reviews and sends it from their mail client or asks you to send_draft. It also names alternatives (send_draft, reply_draft) and attachment sources, giving clear context for when to use this tool.

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