Skip to main content
Glama

send_draft

Send pre-written email drafts directly from Gmail MCP using the draft ID. Simplify email workflows by eliminating manual steps in finalizing and dispatching messages.

Instructions

Send an existing draft

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the draft to send

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'send_draft' tool. Sends the specified draft using the Gmail API by calling gmail.users.drafts.send. Includes error handling for cases like missing recipients. Uses shared handleTool for authentication.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        try {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.send({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { id: params.id } })
          return formatResponse(data)
        } catch (error) {
          return formatResponse({ error: 'Error sending draft, are you sure you have at least one recipient?' })
        }
      })
    }
  • Input schema for the 'send_draft' tool, defining the required 'id' parameter as a string (draft ID).
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to send")
    },
  • src/index.ts:371-386 (registration)
    Registration of the 'send_draft' tool using server.tool(), including description, input schema, and inline handler function.
    server.tool("send_draft",
      "Send an existing draft",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the draft to send")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          try {
            const { data } = await gmail.users.drafts.send({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { id: params.id } })
            return formatResponse(data)
          } catch (error) {
            return formatResponse({ error: 'Error sending draft, are you sure you have at least one recipient?' })
          }
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared helper function 'handleTool' used by send_draft (and other tools) to handle OAuth2 authentication, validate credentials, create Gmail client, execute the API call, and handle errors appropriately.
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        // Check for specific authentication errors
        if (
          error.message?.includes("invalid_grant") ||
          error.message?.includes("refresh_token") ||
          error.message?.includes("invalid_client") ||
          error.message?.includes("unauthorized_client") ||
          error.code === 401 ||
          error.code === 403
        ) {
          return formatResponse({
            error: `Authentication failed: ${error.message}. Please re-authenticate by running: npx @shinzolabs/gmail-mcp auth`,
          });
        }
    
        return formatResponse({ error: `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}` });
      }
    }
  • Helper function 'formatResponse' used to standardize tool responses in MCP format.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Send an existing draft' implies a mutation operation (sending an email), but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens post-send (e.g., draft deletion). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Send an existing draft') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Send a previously saved email draft'), but it's appropriately concise for a simple tool, earning a high score for structure.

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 the complexity (a mutation tool for sending drafts), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in real-world scenarios.

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%, with the parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the draft to send'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Send an existing draft' states the verb ('send') and resource ('draft'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'send_message' or specify what 'send' means in this context (e.g., email dispatch), leaving it somewhat vague compared to more specific alternatives.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a draft created first), differentiate from 'send_message' (which might send without a draft), or specify contexts like email composition workflows, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shinzo-labs/gmail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server