Skip to main content
Glama

draft_update

Fully replace an existing email draft's recipients, subject, body, and attachments; the old draft_id becomes invalid and a new one is returned.

Instructions

Replace a draft's recipients, subject, body and attachments (full replacement). Returns a new draft_id; the old one stops working. Requires MAIL_DRAFTS_ENABLED=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients (optional, max 50)
toYesRecipient email addresses (1..50)
bccNoBCC recipients (optional, max 50)
subjectYesEmail subject (1..998 characters)
draft_idYes`draft_id` returned by `draft_create`, `draft_update` or `draft_list`
reply_toNoReply-To address (optional)
body_htmlNoHTML body (at least one of body_text or body_html required)
body_textNoPlain text body (at least one of body_text or body_html required)
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

TableJSON 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. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it warns that this is a full rebuild, that unlisted attachments are dropped, that a new draft_id is issued, and that the old id stops working. It omits error/permission behavior beyond the env flag (e.g., what happens if the draft no longer exists), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the destructive replacement semantics front-loaded ahead of the side effect (new draft_id) and the prerequisite flag. Nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers mutation semantics, side effects and the enablement gate. Remaining gaps are edge cases such as invalid/expired draft_id handling or account scoping, which are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 includes a nested AttachmentInput with per-field guidance, so the structured data already documents all 12 parameters. The description only names the field groups being replaced, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 (Replace) and resource (a draft's recipients, subject, body and attachments), and the parenthetical 'full replacement' immediately separates it from an additive/patch-style sibling like draft_create or draft_delete. An agent can select it without opening another schema.

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?

Conveys the usage mode (full replacement, not merge) but never states when to reach for this tool over draft_create, draft_send or draft_delete. The prerequisite flag is a gate, not a routing rule, so usage is implied rather than guided.

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