Skip to main content
Glama

Gmail

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Gmail Send

gmail_send
Idempotent

Send an email with recipient, subject, and body text. Optionally add CC, BCC, reply-to address, and file attachments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients (comma-separated email addresses)
toYesRecipient email address
bccNoBCC recipients (comma-separated email addresses)
bodyYesEmail body text (plain text)
subjectYesEmail subject line

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoID of sent message
errorNoError code if connection not authenticated
messageNoError message if connection not authenticated or send failed
labelIdsNoLabel IDs applied to sent message
threadIdNoThread ID of sent message

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral insight. However, it misleadingly mentions 'reply-to address, and file attachments' as optional parameters, which are absent from the input schema. This inaccuracy reduces transparency.

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 description is a single sentence, but it includes extraneous details about parameters not in the schema, making it less efficient. It could be more concise by sticking to schema-supported features.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and an output schema (presumably present). The description fails to mention the output behavior and introduces non-existent parameters. This omission and inaccuracy make it incomplete for reliably invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema for the existing parameters, and it introduces fictitious parameters ('reply-to', 'file attachments'), creating confusion. Baseline 3 is lowered due to misleading additions.

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 'send' and resource 'email', and lists key fields (recipient, subject, body). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings, which are primarily read operations for Gmail (e.g., gmail_get_message, gmail_search).

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?

The description implies the tool is for sending emails, and the sibling context (all other Gmail tools are read-oriented) provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for non-sending needs.

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