de en es ja ko ru zh

MCP Headless Gmail Server

Name: MCP Headless Gmail Server
Author: baryhuang

by baryhuang

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Servidor de Gmail sin cabeza MCP

versión npm Docker Pulls Licencia: MIT

Un servidor MCP (Protocolo de contexto de modelo) que permite obtener y enviar correos de Gmail sin necesidad de configurar credenciales o tokens locales.

¿Por qué elegir un servidor Gmail sin cabeza MCP?

Ventajas críticas

Operación remota y sin cabeza : a diferencia de otras soluciones MCP de Gmail que requieren ejecutarse fuera de Docker y acceder a archivos locales, este servidor puede ejecutarse completamente sin cabeza en entornos remotos sin navegador ni acceso a archivos locales.
Arquitectura desacoplada : cualquier cliente puede completar el flujo OAuth de forma independiente y luego pasar credenciales como contexto a este servidor MCP, creando una separación completa entre el almacenamiento de credenciales y la implementación del servidor.

Agradable pero no crítico.

Funcionalidad enfocada : en muchos casos de uso, especialmente para aplicaciones de marketing, solo se necesita acceso a Gmail sin servicios adicionales de Google como Calendar, lo que hace que esta implementación enfocada sea ideal.
Docker-Ready : diseñado teniendo en cuenta la contenedorización para una configuración con un solo clic, independiente del entorno y bien aislada.
Dependencias confiables : construida sobre la biblioteca google-api-python-client bien mantenida.

Related MCP server: MCP Headless Gmail Server

Características

Obtenga los correos electrónicos más recientes de Gmail con los primeros 1k caracteres del cuerpo
Obtenga el contenido completo del cuerpo del correo electrónico en fragmentos de 1k usando el parámetro de desplazamiento
Enviar correos electrónicos a través de Gmail
Actualizar los tokens de acceso por separado
Manejo automático de tokens de actualización

Prerrequisitos

Python 3.10 o superior
Credenciales de la API de Google (ID de cliente, secreto de cliente, token de acceso y token de actualización)

Instalación

# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/baryhuang/mcp-headless-gmail.git
cd mcp-headless-gmail

# Install dependencies
pip install -e .

Estibador

Construyendo la imagen de Docker

# Build the Docker image
docker build -t mcp-headless-gmail .

Uso con Claude Desktop

Puede configurar Claude Desktop para usar la imagen de Docker agregando lo siguiente a su configuración de Claude:

estibador

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "gmail": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "-i",
        "--rm",
        "buryhuang/mcp-headless-gmail:latest"
      ]
    }
  }
}

versión npm

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "gmail": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "@peakmojo/mcp-server-headless-gmail"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Nota: Con esta configuración, deberá proporcionar sus credenciales de la API de Google en las llamadas a herramientas, como se muestra en la sección "Uso de las herramientas" . Las credenciales de Gmail no se transfieren como variables de entorno para mantener la separación entre el almacenamiento de credenciales y la implementación del servidor.

Publicación multiplataforma

Para publicar la imagen de Docker en varias plataformas, puede usar el comando docker buildx . Siga estos pasos:

Cree una nueva instancia de constructor (si aún no lo ha hecho):
```
docker buildx create --use
```

Construya y envíe la imagen para múltiples plataformas :

docker buildx build --platform linux/amd64,linux/arm64,linux/arm/v7 -t buryhuang/mcp-headless-gmail:latest --push .

Verifique que la imagen esté disponible para las plataformas especificadas :
```
docker buildx imagetools inspect buryhuang/mcp-headless-gmail:latest
```

Uso

El servidor proporciona la funcionalidad de Gmail mediante herramientas MCP. La autenticación se simplifica gracias a una herramienta dedicada a la actualización de tokens.

Iniciando el servidor

mcp-server-headless-gmail

Usando las herramientas

Al utilizar un cliente MCP como Claude, tienes dos formas principales de manejar la autenticación:

Actualización de tokens (primer paso o cuando expiran)

Si tiene tokens de acceso y actualización:

{
  "google_access_token": "your_access_token",
  "google_refresh_token": "your_refresh_token",
  "google_client_id": "your_client_id",
  "google_client_secret": "your_client_secret"
}

Si su token de acceso ha expirado, puede actualizarlo solo con el token de actualización:

{
  "google_refresh_token": "your_refresh_token",
  "google_client_id": "your_client_id",
  "google_client_secret": "your_client_secret"
}

Esto devolverá un nuevo token de acceso y su tiempo de expiración, que puede usar para llamadas posteriores.

Recibir correos electrónicos recientes

Recupera correos electrónicos recientes con los primeros 1k caracteres de cada cuerpo del correo electrónico:

{
  "google_access_token": "your_access_token",
  "max_results": 5,
  "unread_only": false
}

La respuesta incluye:

Metadatos de correo electrónico (id, threadId, de, para, asunto, fecha, etc.)
Los primeros 1000 caracteres del cuerpo del correo electrónico
body_size_bytes : Tamaño total del cuerpo del correo electrónico en bytes
contains_full_body : valor booleano que indica si se incluye todo el cuerpo (verdadero) o se trunca (falso)

Obtener el contenido completo del cuerpo del correo electrónico

Para correos electrónicos con cuerpos de más de 1k caracteres, puedes recuperar el contenido completo en fragmentos:

{
  "google_access_token": "your_access_token",
  "message_id": "message_id_from_get_recent_emails",
  "offset": 0
}

También puedes obtener el contenido del correo electrónico por ID del hilo:

{
  "google_access_token": "your_access_token",
  "thread_id": "thread_id_from_get_recent_emails",
  "offset": 1000
}

La respuesta incluye:

Un fragmento de 1k del cuerpo del correo electrónico a partir del desplazamiento especificado
body_size_bytes : Tamaño total del cuerpo del correo electrónico
chunk_size : Tamaño del fragmento devuelto
contains_full_body : valor booleano que indica si el fragmento contiene el resto del cuerpo

Para recuperar el cuerpo completo del correo electrónico de un mensaje largo, realice llamadas secuenciales aumentando el desplazamiento en 1000 cada vez hasta que contains_full_body sea verdadero.

Enviar un correo electrónico

{
  "google_access_token": "your_access_token",
  "to": "recipient@example.com",
  "subject": "Hello from MCP Gmail",
  "body": "This is a test email sent via MCP Gmail server",
  "html_body": "<p>This is a <strong>test email</strong> sent via MCP Gmail server</p>"
}

Flujo de trabajo de actualización de tokens

Comience llamando a la herramienta gmail_refresh_token con:
- Sus credenciales completas (token de acceso, token de actualización, ID de cliente y secreto de cliente), o
- Solo su token de actualización, ID de cliente y secreto de cliente si el token de acceso ha expirado
Utilice el nuevo token de acceso devuelto para llamadas API posteriores.
Si recibe una respuesta que indica la expiración del token, llame a la herramienta gmail_refresh_token nuevamente para obtener un nuevo token.

Este enfoque simplifica la mayoría de las llamadas API al no requerir credenciales de cliente para cada operación y, al mismo tiempo, permite la actualización del token cuando es necesario.

Obtención de credenciales de la API de Google

Para obtener las credenciales de API de Google necesarias, siga estos pasos:

Vaya a la consola de Google Cloud
Crear un nuevo proyecto
Habilitar la API de Gmail
Configurar la pantalla de consentimiento de OAuth
Cree credenciales de ID de cliente OAuth (seleccione "Aplicación de escritorio" como tipo de aplicación)
Guardar el ID del cliente y el secreto del cliente
Utilice OAuth 2.0 para obtener tokens de acceso y actualización con los siguientes alcances:
- https://www.googleapis.com/auth/gmail.readonly (para leer correos electrónicos)
- https://www.googleapis.com/auth/gmail.send (para enviar correos electrónicos)

Actualización de tokens

Este servidor implementa la actualización automática de tokens. Cuando su token de acceso caduque, el cliente de la API de Google usará el token de actualización, el ID de cliente y el secreto de cliente para obtener un nuevo token de acceso sin necesidad de intervención del usuario.

Nota de seguridad

Este servidor requiere acceso directo a tus credenciales de la API de Google. Mantén siempre tus tokens y credenciales seguros y nunca los compartas con terceros que no sean de confianza.

Licencia

Consulte el archivo LICENCIA para obtener más detalles.

Available Tools

4 tools

gmail_get_email_body_chunkB

Get a 1k character chunk of an email body starting from the specified offset

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`google_access_token`	Yes	Google OAuth2 access token
`message_id`	No	ID of the message to retrieve
`thread_id`	No	ID of the thread to retrieve (will get the first message if multiple exist)
`offset`	No	Offset in characters to start from (default: 0)

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 1k character chunking behavior, which is valuable, but doesn't address authentication needs (though implied by google_access_token parameter), error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid offsets/message_ids. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the chunking behavior but lacks details about authentication requirements, error conditions, and how this tool relates to siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for safe usage.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds context about the 'offset' parameter (default: 0) and clarifies that thread_id retrieves the first message if multiple exist, providing some value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('email body chunk'), and key constraint ('1k character chunk starting from specified offset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gmail_get_recent_emails, which retrieves multiple emails rather than a specific body chunk.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a message_id or thread_id), nor does it explain when this tool is appropriate compared to gmail_get_recent_emails for retrieving email content.

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

gmail_get_recent_emailsC

Get the most recent emails from Gmail (returns metadata, snippets, and first 1k chars of body)

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`google_access_token`	Yes	Google OAuth2 access token
`max_results`	No	Maximum number of emails to return (default: 10)
`unread_only`	No	Whether to return only unread emails (default: False)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is returned (metadata, snippets, first 1k chars of body) which is helpful, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (beyond the parameter), rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality and return format. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

Given the complexity of email retrieval (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format in detail, doesn't mention authentication requirements beyond the parameter, and doesn't cover important behavioral aspects. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about what to expect from the operation.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the most recent emails from Gmail' specifies the verb (get) and resource (emails). It distinguishes from sibling 'gmail_get_email_body_chunk' by indicating it returns metadata, snippets, and partial body content, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'gmail_send_email' or 'gmail_refresh_token' beyond the obvious functional difference.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this versus 'gmail_get_email_body_chunk' for full body retrieval, or when to use 'gmail_refresh_token' for token management. Usage context is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.

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

gmail_refresh_tokenB

Refresh the access token using the refresh token and client credentials

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`google_access_token`	No	Google OAuth2 access token (optional if expired)
`google_refresh_token`	Yes	Google OAuth2 refresh token
`google_client_id`	Yes	Google OAuth2 client ID for token refresh
`google_client_secret`	Yes	Google OAuth2 client secret for token refresh

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does at a high level. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this invalidates previous tokens, rate limits, error conditions, or what the refreshed token enables. For a security-sensitive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core functionality.

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?

For a security-critical token refresh operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after refresh (e.g., token lifetime, scope preservation), error handling, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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 schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Refresh') and resource ('access token'), specifying it uses refresh token and client credentials. It distinguishes from sibling tools (email-related operations) by focusing on authentication token management, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for token refresh.

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 implies usage when access tokens expire (via 'optional if expired' in schema), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like initial authentication or other token management methods. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

gmail_send_emailC

Send an email via Gmail

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`google_access_token`	Yes	Google OAuth2 access token
`to`	Yes	Recipient email address
`subject`	Yes	Email subject
`body`	Yes	Email body content (plain text)
`html_body`	No	Email body content in HTML format (optional)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('send an email') but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements (implied by the 'google_access_token' parameter but not explicitly stated), potential rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon success (e.g., whether it returns a confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words—'Send an email via Gmail' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like authentication needs, behavioral traits (e.g., what 'send' entails operationally), or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'to' as recipient email, 'body' as plain text content). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions (e.g., 'body' vs. 'html_body') or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Send an email via Gmail' clearly states the verb ('send') and resource ('email via Gmail'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gmail_get_recent_emails' or 'gmail_refresh_token' beyond the obvious action distinction, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication via 'google_access_token'), nor does it clarify scenarios where other tools like 'gmail_get_recent_emails' might be more appropriate, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

4 tool updatesAug 14, 2025
- First observedgmail_get_email_body_chunk
- First observedgmail_get_recent_emails
- First observedgmail_refresh_token
- First observedgmail_send_email

Deploy Server

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

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 11:15 across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving email body chunks, listing recent emails, refreshing tokens, and sending emails. There is no overlap in functionality that would cause confusion or misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'gmail_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand. The naming convention is uniform across all four tools.

Tool Count4/5

With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for a Gmail server, though it feels slightly thin for covering all common email operations. It includes core functions but could benefit from additional tools like searching or managing drafts.

Completeness3/5

The tools cover basic email operations (read, list, send) and authentication, but there are notable gaps such as searching emails, managing labels, or handling attachments. This could limit agents in performing more complex email tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

sebastianall1977-gmail-mcpOAuth
ai.smithery
Manage Gmail end-to-end: search, read, send, draft, label, and organize threads. Automate workflow…
Communication App Automation Workplace & Productivity
2
MCP Emails AOAuth
com.mcpemails
Never-stored live email: read, send, organize, schedule and auto-triage Gmail or any IMAP mailbox.
Communication Email
2426
google-workspaceOAuth
com.proscendia
Permissioned access to Gmail, Drive and Calendar via the user's own Google account
Email Cloud Storage Calendar Management
1
gmail AOAuth
com.mintmcp
A MCP server for Gmail that lets you search, read, and draft emails and replies.
Communication App Automation Workplace & Productivity
1248

Related MCP Servers

Gmail MCP Server
Ansh-Wappnet
A
license
Not graded
quality
Not graded
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables applications to interact with Gmail through a clean API, supporting email searching, sending, reading, and label management.
Updated a year ago (2025-06-19 05:53 UTC)
MIT
MCP Headless Gmail Server
Communication App Automation
AbhinavBansal17
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
Enables reading and sending Gmail messages in headless/remote environments without local credential storage, using OAuth tokens passed directly in API calls for containerized deployments.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-11-17 07:13 UTC)
3
33 npm
MIT
Gmail MCP Server
Communication App Automation Workplace & Productivity
domdomegg
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables reading, sending, archiving, and managing Gmail emails and labels through Google OAuth authentication, acting as an OAuth proxy to the Gmail API.
Updated 9 days ago (2026-09-09 16:18 UTC)
292 npm
11
MIT
gmail-mcp-server
Email Communication
ivanlhz
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that exposes the Gmail API for integration with LLMs, enabling email management tasks such as reading, labeling, and searching emails.
Updated a year ago (2025-04-22 16:20 UTC)
7
MIT

Appeared in Searches

Gmail - Google's Email Service