Skip to main content
Glama

missive

by io.usefulapi

Create draft

missive_create_draft
Destructive

Create a draft email/message. WARNING: setting send=true SENDS a real email immediately (send_at schedules it) instead of saving a draft. Attach to an existing thread with conversation. Missive: POST /drafts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe message body (HTML) — required.
sendNoIf true, SEND the email immediately instead of saving a draft.
send_atNoUnix timestamp to schedule the send.
subjectNoThe subject line.
cc_fieldsNoCc recipients.
to_fieldsNoRecipients ({address, name?}).
bcc_fieldsNoBcc recipients.
from_fieldNoThe sender ({address, name?}).
referencesNoMessage-ID references (for threading).
conversationNoAttach the draft to an existing conversation id.
organizationNoOrganization id to send from.
add_assigneesNoUser ids to assign to the conversation.
add_shared_labelsNoShared label ids to apply.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses critical mutation behaviors: send=true sends immediately, send_at schedules. Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond that.

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 efficient sentences plus API hint, front-loaded with main action and warning. No redundant information.

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?

Despite many parameters, description lacks details on parameter interactions (e.g., send vs send_at), constraints (e.g., subject requirement for sending), and does not explain return values (no output schema). Adequate but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds limited extra meaning (e.g., attaching to thread), but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Create a draft email/message' (verb+resource) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_message or list_conversation_drafts by focusing on creation.

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?

Provides explicit warning about send=true sending a real email and mentions attaching to existing threads, giving clear usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All missive toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a unique resource-action combination (e.g., missive_get_contact vs missive_list_contacts). There is no overlap in functionality; the purposes are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a strict 'missive_verb_noun' pattern in lowercase snake_case. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, and update, applied consistently across resources.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still reasonable for covering multiple resources like contacts, conversations, messages, and lists. Each tool serves a specific purpose without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: listing, getting, creating contacts/drafts, managing conversations, and viewing sub-items. Minor gaps exist (no update for contacts, no delete for any resource), but these are acceptable for an initial release.

Resources