Skip to main content
Glama

draft_create

Save a new email as a draft in the account's Drafts folder (IMAP, EWS or Graph, chosen from the account's configuration). Nothing is sent. Requires MAIL_DRAFTS_ENABLED=true.

Instructions

Save a new email as a draft in the account's Drafts folder (IMAP, EWS or Graph, chosen from the account's configuration). Nothing is sent. Requires MAIL_DRAFTS_ENABLED=true.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients (optional, max 50)
toYesRecipient email addresses (1..50)
bccNoBCC recipients (optional, max 50); kept on the draft until it is sent
subjectYesEmail subject (1..998 characters)
reply_toNoReply-To address (optional)
body_htmlNoHTML body (at least one of body_text or body_html required). Separate field from `body_text`: pass the HTML itself, never wrapped in pseudo-tags like `<body_html>`; the server rejects them.
body_textNoPlain text body (at least one of body_text or body_html required). Separate field from `body_html`: never concatenate the two or wrap content in pseudo-tags like `<body_text>`; the server rejects them.
account_idNoAccount identifier (defaults to `"default"`)default
referencesNoReferences header for threading (optional)
attachmentsNoFile attachments (optional)
in_reply_toNoIn-Reply-To message ID for threading (optional)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesTool-specific data payload
metaYesExecution metadata (timestamp, duration)
summaryYesHuman-readable summary of the operation outcome

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / body_html / description
      Previous value: -"HTML body (at least one of body_text or body_html required)"New value: +"HTML body (at least one of body_text or body_html required).\nSeparate field from `body_text`: pass the HTML itself, never wrapped\nin pseudo-tags like `<body_html>`; the server rejects them."
    • changedInput schema / properties / body_text / description
      Previous value: -"Plain text body (at least one of body_text or body_html required)"New value: +"Plain text body (at least one of body_text or body_html required).\nSeparate field from `body_html`: never concatenate the two or wrap\ncontent in pseudo-tags like `<body_text>`; the server rejects them."
  2. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden and does so well: it discloses the non-sending safety profile, explains backend selection (IMAP/EWS/Graph per account config), and names the feature flag requirement. It stops short of error/failure behavior or permission details, keeping it at 4.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a prerequisite flag, with the non-sending guarantee and destination front-loaded. No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, 100% parameter coverage, and the backend-selection logic explained, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand where the draft lands.

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 the parameter descriptions are already rich (limits like max 50 and 1..998 chars, the body_text/body_html pseudo-tag rejection rule). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (save a draft) and resource (new email in Drafts folder), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the send siblings with 'Nothing is sent.' An agent can tell this apart from draft_send/smtp_send_message without reading schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear usage context ('save a new email as a draft' vs sending) and a concrete prerequisite ('Requires MAIL_DRAFTS_ENABLED=true'). It does not explicitly route to draft_update for editing an existing draft, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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