Google Workspace MCP Server

draft_email

Create an email draft in Gmail with specified recipients, subject, and body. Supports optional cc, bcc, and body type selection without sending.

Instructions

Create a draft in the authenticated Gmail account without sending.

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "draft_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cc`	No
`to`	Yes
`bcc`	No
`body`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`body_type`	No	plain

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description only states it creates a draft without sending, but omits important behavioral details such as permission requirements, draft storage, or conflict handling.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover how drafts are stored, how to send later, or what the return value is, leaving significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (to, cc, bcc, etc.), leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names which may not convey format or constraints.

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 'Create a draft' with the specific resource 'in the authenticated Gmail account', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_email' by adding 'without sending'.

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 phrase 'without sending' implies not to use this tool when sending is intended, but lacks explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives compared to siblings.

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

Deploy Server