ProtonMail MCP Server

send_draft

Send a saved draft email from your ProtonMail Drafts folder. The draft is transmitted via SMTP and then removed from Drafts.

Instructions

Send an existing draft via SMTP and remove it from Drafts

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": {
      "draftId": "<draftId>"
    },
    "name": "send_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draftId`	Yes	Draft ID to send (format: Drafts:uid)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that the draft is removed from Drafts after sending, which is not in annotations. This provides useful context beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 a single sentence of 10 words with no fluff. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and behavior.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action and side effect. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., draft must exist, must be in Drafts), but for this low complexity, it is fairly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents draftId and its format. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, thus meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the verb 'Send' and the resource 'existing draft', and specifies the method (via SMTP) and the effect (remove from Drafts). This distinguishes it from siblings like send_email (which composes new) and delete_draft.

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 when you have a draft to send, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_email or create_draft. No when-not or alternative naming is provided.

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

Deploy Server