Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gws-mcp__gmail_send

Destructive

Send a new email via Gmail. Composes and sends an email message to the specified recipients. Accepts a plain-text body, an HTML html_body, or both — HTML is sent as multipart/alternative with a plain-text fallback. The account's Gmail signature is appended automatically, so do not write a sign-off or signature in the body yourself; pass signature: false to send without it. The signature goes in the message's HTML part, so a plain-text body is sent as multipart/alternative when the account has one. The response's signature field reports what happened.

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "gws-mcp__gmail_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients, comma-separated
toYesRecipient email address(es), comma-separated
bccNoBCC recipients, comma-separated
bodyNoPlain-text email body. When html_body is also given, this becomes the text/plain alternative part shown by plain-text clients. One of body or html_body is required.
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
subjectYesEmail subject line
html_bodyNoHTML email body. The message is sent as multipart/alternative with a text/plain fallback part (body if provided, otherwise text derived from the HTML), so plain-text clients still render something readable.
signatureNoSet false to send without the account's Gmail signature, and to skip the lookup entirely. Defaults to true.
attachmentsNoFiles to send with the message, at most 10, 25 MB in total. Each entry is a Drive file id as a string, or {"file_id": "<id>", "as": "<format>"} to send a Google Doc, Sheet or Slides deck as a file, or a file reference. Formats: Docs pdf, docx, txt, html, md, rtf, odt, epub; Sheets pdf, xlsx, csv, tsv, html, ods; Slides pdf, pptx, txt, odp. csv and tsv export one tab: add "tab": "<title>" to choose it, otherwise the first tab goes, and the response says which. A Sheet as html arrives as a .zip of pages, one per tab; Slides as txt is the slides' visible text only. Google Docs, Sheets and Slides passed by id alone are sent as links in the message, the way Gmail does, not as files. Other Drive files are attached as they are. A file reference is an object with a "type": {"type": "gmail_message", "message_id": "<id>"} attaches an email as its original .eml, {"type": "gmail_attachment", "message_id": "<id>", "part_id": "<part id>"} one attachment of an email, {"type": "drive_file", "file_id": "<id>"} a Drive file as stored, {"type": "drive_export", "file_id": "<id>", "format": "pdf"} a Google file exported, {"type": "content", "name": "<file name>", "base64": "<standard base64, one unbroken string>"} a file the caller already holds, at most 1 MB, and {"type": "upload", "upload_id": "<id>"} a file the user sent through file_upload_link. A reference may carry an "account" naming the connected Google account that holds the email or file. Several entries may be references. Two attachments may not share a filename. To show an image in the body rather than at the bottom, reference it in html_body as <img src="cid:FILENAME">, where FILENAME is its Drive filename with any character other than letters, digits, dot, dash and underscore replaced by an underscore. Sharing a Drive link is the sender's responsibility; nothing here changes who can open a file. The response's attachments field reports each file as attached, inline, linked or exported, with its size and the SHA-256 of the bytes that went into the message; a file sent as a link has neither.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: automatic signature appending, multipart/alternative fallback between body and html_body, and a signature field in the response. However, it never states the obvious consequence of the destructiveHint — that a sent message cannot be recalled — and says nothing about the attachments parameter, a large and consequential capability documented only in the schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the signature discussion sprawls across three sentences and becomes circular ("The signature goes in the message's HTML part, so a plain-text body is sent as multipart/alternative when the account has one"). The final sentence about the response's signature field is a fragment that adds little.

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?

For a 9-parameter, high-stakes send tool with no output schema, the description covers the composition and signature path adequately and references the response's signature field. It leaves out attachments entirely and does not address irreversibility or account-level authorization, so an agent reading only the prose would miss a significant part of the tool's surface.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning for body/html_body interplay and the auto-signature behavior (including the instruction not to write a sign-off), but it adds nothing about attachments, cc/bcc, or account selection beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Send a new email via Gmail") and the word "new" implicitly separates it from gws-mcp__gmail_reply and gws-mcp__gmail_forward, which are present in the sibling list. It does not name those siblings outright, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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?

No guidance is given on when to send directly versus gws-mcp__gmail_create_draft, gws-mcp__gmail_send_draft, gws-mcp__gmail_reply or gws-mcp__gmail_forward. The only prescriptive advice is inside the body text ("do not write a sign-off", "pass signature: false"), which governs parameter use rather than tool selection.

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

All DataToRAG toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources