Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gmail AI Agent MCP Server

Gmail AI Agent MCP Server

by 0x8687
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

reply_to_email

Reply to an email using its ID and your message, delivering your response to the original sender.

Instructions

Reply to an existing email

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": {
      "emailId": "<emailId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailIdYesThe ID of the email to reply to
messageYesThe reply message content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the reply includes original content, sets reply headers, or any other behavioral details.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One concise sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Could benefit from more detail but remains efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks information about reply formatting, required actions before replying, or optional parameters like cc.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Reply to an existing email' clearly states the verb (reply) and resource (email), distinguishing it from siblings like 'send_email' (new email) and 'forward_email'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'forward_email' or 'send_email'. No prerequisites or context provided.

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