ProtonMail MCP Server

create_draft

Create a new draft email in the Drafts folder with subject, body, and optional recipients, CC, BCC, and reply-to fields.

Instructions

Create a new draft email in the Drafts folder

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	CC recipients, comma-separated
`to`	No	Recipient email address(es), comma-separated
`bcc`	No	BCC recipients, comma-separated
`body`	Yes	Email body content
`isHtml`	No	Whether body is HTML
`replyTo`	No	Reply-to email address
`subject`	Yes	Email subject
`inReplyTo`	No	RFC 5322 Message-ID of the message being replied to, e.g. '<abc@example.com>'. Prefer create_reply_draft, which derives this for you.
`references`	No	Full Message-ID chain of the conversation, oldest first. Prefer create_reply_draft, which derives this for you.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.0Oct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / inReplyTo

Added value: +{
+  "description": "RFC 5322 Message-ID of the message being replied to, e.g. '<abc@example.com>'. Prefer create_reply_draft, which derives this for you.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / references

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Full Message-ID chain of the conversation, oldest first. Prefer create_reply_draft, which derives this for you.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedv2.0.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the result lands in the Drafts folder (a non-obvious side effect of a 'create' call), which is real added value, but it says nothing about permissions, persistence, or that creation does not send the email.

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 short sentence with the key fact (drafts folder) front-loaded and zero filler. Appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are fully documented elsewhere.

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?

No output schema and no parameter gaps, so the description need not explain return values. But for a mutation tool in a dense sibling family, it omits any sibling differentiation and any note that this only stages the message rather than sending it — an agent could confuse it with send_email or send_draft.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema fully documents fields, formats, and even the create_reply_draft preference for inReplyTo/references. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new draft email') and adds the destination scope ('in the Drafts folder'), which distinguishes it from the generic send_email. However it does not differentiate from the sibling create_reply_draft, which also creates drafts; the routing hint for that sibling lives in the schema's inReplyTo description, not the tool description.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings create_reply_draft, update_draft, and send_draft in the same family, an agent gets no explicit rule for choosing this tool over them — the only disambiguation is buried in a parameter description.

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

Deploy Server