Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gwagent

gwagent

by vcnngr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gmail_drafts

Lists Gmail drafts from the Drafts folder or matching a search query, returning indexes that feed gmail.send_draft.

Instructions

List drafts (Drafts folder, or drafts matching a Gmail query). Indexes feed gmail.send_draft.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gmail_drafts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax drafts to return.
queryNoOptional Gmail search terms; searches 'in:drafts <query>'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and the note that indexes feed gmail.send_draft discloses useful cross-tool coupling, but nothing is said about ordering, pagination, or result shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no wasted words. The second sentence is terse enough to be slightly cryptic but still 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what a draft listing returns — the mention of 'indexes' gestures at this but doesn't explain the format or how indexes are consumed. Adequate for a simple two-optional-parameter list tool, but incomplete about results.

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 both parameters (limit, query) are already fully documented, including the 'in:drafts <query>' behavior. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('List drafts') and scopes it to the Drafts folder or a Gmail query, which separates it from gmail_list and gmail_search. The trailing 'Indexes feed gmail.send_draft' is useful but oddly phrased and doesn't name a sibling it is definitively not.

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?

Usage is implied by the parenthetical scope (Drafts folder, or drafts matching a query) but there is no explicit when-to-use vs gmail_search or gmail_list, and no mention of when to use it before gmail_send_draft.

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