google_gmail_drafts_listRetrieve a list of draft emails from your Gmail account. Specify account nickname and optional max results to control the output.
List draft emails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| maxResults | No | Max drafts (default 25). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It does not mention read-only behavior, result shape, ordering, pagination, or the default maximum result, even though the schema documents maxResults as a property.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but simply repeats the tool title and name without adding value. It lacks a front-loaded behavioral or usage statement, so the single sentence does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool with only two optional, fully described parameters and no output schema. The minimal description is probably usable, but the absence of any mention of return format or pagination leaves minor gaps that a richer description could close.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'account' and 'maxResults'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('List') applied to a specific resource ('draft emails'), matching the tool name. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like google_gmail_list (emails) and google_gmail_drafts_get (single draft), though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of google_gmail_list, google_gmail_drafts_get, or other Gmail draft tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues beyond the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.