gsuite

google-gmail_create_draft

Create a draft email by providing a base64url-encoded RFC 2822 message object. Specify the user's email address or use 'me'.

Instructions

Create a new draft message. IMPORTANT: Message must be an object with 'raw' field containing base64url-encoded RFC 2822 formatted message.

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "google-gmail_create_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userId`	No	User's email address or 'me' for authenticated user
`message`	Yes	Message object containing draft content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates that a draft is created and requires a specific encoding format. It does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral understanding.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the action and one providing an important format requirement. No extraneous information, and the critical note is emphasized.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite the complexity (nested object, encoding requirement), the description lacks information about return values, draft behavior, and how to use the created draft. Without an output schema, the agent has insufficient context to understand the full tool usage.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds critical detail: the 'message' object must contain a 'raw' field with base64url-encoded RFC 2822 formatted message. This significantly clarifies the parameter's structure beyond the schema's generic description.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new draft message'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'google-gmail_send_message' which sends a message, and the purpose is immediately understandable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides guidance on the required format of the 'raw' field but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a draft vs. sending a message). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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