Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
support-inbox-mcp

support-inbox-mcp

by r28ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gmail_drafts_create

Save an email draft to Gmail for later review or sending, including recipients, subject, body, and optional thread details.

Instructions

Save an email draft to Gmail.

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": "gmail_drafts_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe draft to create.
userIdNoThe user's email address. The special value 'me' can be used to indicate the authenticated user.me

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-read nature is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the draft is not sent, whether creation is idempotent, or what auth is required, so the behavioral burden is largely unmet.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is well structured. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but as a size/structure judgment it is tight and readable.

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?

For a write tool with only minimal annotations and no output schema, the description should at least clarify that it saves rather than sends and hint at the returned draft. The rich input schema compensates for parameters, but the core behavioral distinction is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the nested Message/Draft/EmailContent fields are richly documented (threadId rules, bodyHtml multipart behavior, in_reply_to threading). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save an email draft') and destination (Gmail), which is enough to know it creates a draft rather than sending. However, it does not distinguish itself from the adjacent gmail_messages_send sibling, so an agent gets no explicit routing cue.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tool (gmail_messages_send) for actually delivering mail. The agent must infer that this only persists a draft.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools