MCP Google Workspace Server

draft_gmail

Draft an email in Gmail by specifying recipients, subject, body, and optional CC, BCC, or reply-to. The draft is saved without sending.

Instructions

Create a Gmail draft without sending it.

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_gmail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No	CC recipients.
`to`	Yes	Recipient email addresses.
`bcc`	No	BCC recipients.
`body`	Yes	Email body content.
`subject`	Yes	Email subject line.
`reply_to`	No	Reply-To header address.
`body_type`	No	Body format. Defaults to text.	text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the draft is not sent. However, it does not mention authentication needs, side effects, or return behavior.

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 with 7 words, front-loaded, no waste. Every word earns its place.

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 mention of return values or prerequisites. For a simple draft creation tool, the description is adequate but missing return information. Schema parameters fully described.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already describes all parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'Gmail draft' with the outcome 'without sending it'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'send_gmail' which sends, and 'append_to_google_doc' which is unrelated.

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?

Description implies usage for creating drafts rather than sending, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_gmail'. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Deploy Server