Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Apple Mail

Apple Mail

by yu2001-s
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read-draft

Retrieve the full content of a specific email draft, including sender, recipients, subject, and body, using its unique draft ID.

Instructions

Use when: reading the full current contents of one draft selected from list-drafts. Returns: the stable draft_id, actual From identity, recipients, subject, and full body. Do not use when: you only need draft summaries (use list-drafts).

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": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "read-draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draft_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draftNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. While it implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state behavioral traits like non-destructiveness, idempotency, or authorization needs. The description is adequate but lacks full transparency.

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 concise sentences, each essential: usage indication, return description, and exclusion of alternative. Front-loaded with the primary use case. 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return structure. It lists key returned fields and distinguishes from list-drafts. Missing minor details like error conditions or prerequisites, but sufficient for a read tool.

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 0%, but the description adds context by stating the tool reads a draft selected from list-drafts, implying the draft_id parameter comes from that source. The parameter name and pattern are self-explanatory, and the description adds value 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 clearly states the tool reads the full current contents of a draft, lists the returned fields (draft_id, From, recipients, subject, full body), and distinguishes itself from list-drafts.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use ('reading the full current contents of one draft selected from list-drafts') and when not to use ('only need draft summaries – use list-drafts').

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