orieg/gws-connector

by orieg

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remote

gws.mail.create_draft

Create Gmail email drafts with HTML or plain text, set recipients, subject, and reply to existing threads.

Instructions

Create an email draft. Supports plain text and HTML bodies.

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "gws.mail.create_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	CC recipients, comma-separated
`to`	No	Recipient email(s), comma-separated
`bcc`	No	BCC recipients, comma-separated
`body`	Yes	Email body (plain text or HTML)
`account`	No	Account label or email. Uses default if omitted.
`subject`	No	Email subject
`threadId`	No	Thread ID for reply drafts
`contentType`	No	Body content type: 'text/plain' or 'text/html' (auto-detected if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that plain text and HTML bodies are supported, but does not disclose auto-detection behavior, draft persistence, or return value details. This is adequate given the annotations, but not particularly rich.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action and includes only essential supporting detail about body formats. No wasted words; very efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but omits context on return values, default account behavior, and contentType auto-detection. It is sufficient for a straightforward invocation but leaves some ambiguity for a complex tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description's mention of plain text and HTML bodies maps directly to the contentType and body parameters, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create an email draft.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like send_draft and modify_message by focusing on the creation of a draft rather than sending or modifying.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for composing emails, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as send_draft or read_message. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

Deploy Server