Skip to main content
Glama

Gmail

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Gmail Search

gmail_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search emails using Gmail query syntax (e.g., 'from:sender@example.com', 'subject:invoice', 'has:attachment', 'after:2024/01/01', 'is:unread'). Returns matching message IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesGmail search query (e.g., "from:bob@example.com after:2024/01/01 has:attachment")
max_resultsNoMaximum number of messages to return (default 10, max 100)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoError code if connection not authenticated
messageNoError message if connection not authenticated
messagesNoArray of matching message summaries
nextPageTokenNoToken for fetching next page of results
resultSizeEstimateNoEstimated total number of matching messages

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destuctiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns message IDs, which is useful. No contradictions. Missing details like rate limits or authentication needs, but annotations compensate.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. Purpose and syntax examples are front-loaded. Efficient and well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given only 2 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema (not shown but context confirms), the description is complete. It explains the query syntax and return type clearly.

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% with both parameters documented. The description provides Gmail query syntax examples, adding marginal value beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches emails using Gmail query syntax and returns message IDs. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('emails'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_get_message, gmail_list_messages, and gmail_list_labels by focusing on a query-based search.

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?

The description provides examples of valid query syntax, implying usage context (e.g., for filtering emails). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings like gmail_list_messages (for simpler listing without query) or give any exclusion criteria.

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

All Gmail 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among tools, particularly within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the Polymarket family (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). These tools have similar purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish them at a glance. The Gmail tools are a small, distinct cluster, but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the verb_noun pattern is inconsistent. Many start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, etc.), but some use noun_verb (bet_research), noun_noun (entity_profile), or adjective_noun (deep_research). This mixed pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Gmail' suggests a focused email service. Only 5 tools are Gmail-related, while the rest cover a vast, unrelated domain (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.). This mismatch makes the tool count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Gmail domain, the tool surface is incomplete (e.g., missing delete, archive, modify labels). For the broader Pipeworx/Polymarket domain, the tools are extensive but lack clarity in coverage. The server attempts to cover too many domains without sufficient depth in any, leading to notable gaps.

Resources