Skip to main content
Glama
ronamosa

ProtonMail MCP Server

by ronamosa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_draft

Replace an existing email draft with updated subject, body, and recipients by draft ID, allowing revisions before sending.

Instructions

Update an existing draft by replacing it with new content

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients, comma-separated
toNoRecipient email address(es), comma-separated
bccNoBCC recipients, comma-separated
bodyYesEmail body content
isHtmlNoWhether body is HTML
draftIdYesDraft ID to update (format: Drafts:uid)
replyToNoReply-to email address
subjectYesEmail subject
inReplyToNoRFC 5322 Message-ID of the message being replied to, e.g. '<abc@example.com>'. Prefer create_reply_draft, which derives this for you.
referencesNoFull 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.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.0
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The phrase 'replacing it with new content' usefully signals full-replacement semantics rather than a merge, but the description says nothing about what happens to unset fields, permission requirements, or whether the draft is re-saved to the same folder.

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 efficient sentence with the key replacement behavior front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for a 10-parameter mutation.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin: it never clarifies the replacement-vs-merge contract for the 7 optional fields, nor does it mention the sibling routing hints that the schema carries.

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 all 10 parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear verb+resource (update a draft) and adds the replacement semantics. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like create_draft, send_draft, or delete_draft, which an agent must pick between.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. The schema mentions create_reply_draft for reply fields, but the description itself offers nothing about when this tool is the right choice over send_draft or create_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