Google Workspace MCP Server

get_email_draft

Retrieve an existing Gmail draft by providing its ID. Get draft details including headers, snippet, and IDs.

Instructions

Retrieve an existing email draft from Gmail.

Args: draft_id: The ID of the draft to retrieve.

Returns: Draft details including headers, snippet, and IDs.

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": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_email_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the main action and return values. It omits behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, error behavior (e.g., missing draft_id), or any side effects. The description minimally adds value beyond the name.

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?

The description is three sentences: one for purpose, one for argument, one for returns. Every sentence is necessary and clearly structured. It is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it lacks context about error handling, prerequisites (e.g., existing draft), or more detailed return structure. It is minimally complete but could be enriched with typical usage notes.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a basic meaning for 'draft_id' ('The ID of the draft to retrieve'), which adds value over the schema's bare property name. However, no additional context like format, source, or constraints is given. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'Retrieve an existing email draft from Gmail', specifying the resource (email drafts) and the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'draft_email' or 'update_email_draft', which reduces clarity purpose.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate that this tool should be used only after a draft has been created via 'draft_email'.

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

Deploy Server