Skip to main content
Glama

send_draft

Send a saved draft email from Gmail by specifying its ID to complete and deliver the message.

Instructions

Send an existing draft

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the draft to send

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:357-372 (registration)
    Registration of the send_draft tool, including name, description, input schema, and inline handler function.
    server.tool("send_draft",
      "Send an existing draft",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to send")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          try {
            const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.send({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { id: params.id } })
            return formatResponse(data)
          } catch (error) {
            return formatResponse({ error: 'Error sending draft, are you sure you have at least one recipient?' })
          }
        })
      }
    )
  • The handler function for the send_draft tool. It uses the shared handleTool helper to authenticate, create a Gmail client, and call the Gmail API to send the specified draft by ID.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        try {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.send({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { id: params.id } })
          return formatResponse(data)
        } catch (error) {
          return formatResponse({ error: 'Error sending draft, are you sure you have at least one recipient?' })
        }
      })
    }
  • Zod input schema defining the required 'id' parameter for the draft to send.
    id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to send")
  • Shared helper function used by send_draft (and other tools) to handle OAuth2 authentication, credential validation, Gmail client creation, and API call execution.
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        return `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}`
      }
    }
  • Shared helper function to format tool responses as MCP content blocks with JSON-stringified data.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('send') but doesn't explain what happens after sending (e.g., does the draft get deleted or archived?), whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects like rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse and could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity, as it currently under-specifies the tool's behavior.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'send' entails, potential errors, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'The ID of the draft to send'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as where to find the ID or format requirements. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Send an existing draft' clearly states the verb ('send') and resource ('existing draft'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'send' means operationally (e.g., sending an email) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'create_draft', leaving ambiguity about its exact scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a draft created first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'send_message' or 'create_draft', leaving the agent to infer usage context 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nk900600/gmail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server