Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

list_drafts

List email drafts from a Gmail account, ordered oldest-first, and return draft IDs and metadata for sending or deleting drafts.

Instructions

List drafts in an account sorted oldest-first by internalDate. Returns draft_id (for send_draft/delete_drafts), message_id, thread_id, subject, to, and internalDate.

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": {
      "account": "<account>"
    },
    "name": "list_drafts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	Yes	Account id.
`max_results`	No	Maximum number of drafts to return (default 20, max 500).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.2Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sort order, the specific fields returned, and hints at the tool's use in a multi-step workflow. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause provides useful information (sort order, return fields, cross-references to other tools). No wasted words.

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?

For a two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and sorting. It could mention pagination limits (max 500) or clarify that it returns only drafts, but these are partially addressed by the schema and the tool name/siblings.

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%, so the parameters account and max_results are already fully described. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond indicating the sorting logic, which relates to internalDate rather than the parameters themselves.

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 the specific action (List drafts) and the resource (drafts in an account), with a definite sorting order (oldest-first by internalDate). It also enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_drafts or read_emails.

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?

The description gives clear context that this tool lists all drafts for an account, and notes that draft_id is intended for send_draft/delete_drafts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like search_drafts for filtered retrieval or explain when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server