google_gmail_drafts_listList draft emails in a Gmail account, with pagination controls to retrieve drafts by page and set result limits.
List draft emails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| pageToken | No | Token from a previous page's nextPageToken. | |
| maxResults | No | Max drafts (default 25). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / pageTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Token from a previous page's nextPageToken.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.30Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the default account behavior is when 'account' is omitted, how pagination behaves beyond the schema's nextPageToken hint, or what the returned items contain. For a no-annotation tool this is a meaningful gap.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — there is room to add scoping or pagination context without bloat.
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?
With a fully described 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It does not explain return shape (draft IDs, message snippets) or default account resolution, which an agent would need to interpret results or omit parameters safely.
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 all three parameters (account, pageToken, maxResults with its default of 25 and 1-100 bounds) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("List draft emails"), and the word "drafts" distinguishes it from the message-oriented siblings like google_gmail_list and google_gmail_threads_list. However, it is essentially a restatement of the title "List email drafts" and adds no scope detail such as which account or whether all drafts are returned.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus google_gmail_list, google_gmail_threads_list, or google_gmail_drafts_get. The agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.