Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

by tszaks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

send_draft

Send an existing Gmail draft using its draft ID, returning the message and thread IDs for confirmation.

Instructions

Send an existing Gmail draft by draft ID. Returns message_id and thread_id. Use list_drafts to find draft IDs sorted oldest-first.

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>",
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "send_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYesAccount id.
draft_idYesDraft ID to send (as returned by create_draft or list_drafts).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return values (message_id and thread_id), which is useful, but it omits the side effect that sending a draft consumes/removes the draft. This is an important behavioral trait for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentences with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded, followed by return values and a usage hint, making every sentence earn its place.

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 simple tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, how to obtain the required input, and what the return values are. It lacks only a note about the draft being consumed, but overall it is adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra context by noting list_drafts returns IDs sorted oldest-first, which helps the agent select the right draft_id and understand ordering, going beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Send an existing Gmail draft by draft ID.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like send_email (which sends new emails) and list_drafts (which lists drafts).

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?

It gives explicit guidance on using list_drafts to find draft IDs, including the ordering detail. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like send_email, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools