Gmail MCP

update_auto_forwarding

Update automatic email forwarding settings: enable or disable forwarding to another address, set the destination, and choose how forwarded messages are handled (leave in inbox, archive, trash, or mark as read).

Instructions

Updates automatic forwarding settings

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": {
      "enabled": "<enabled>",
      "emailAddress": "<emailAddress>",
      "disposition": "<disposition>"
    },
    "name": "update_auto_forwarding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`enabled`	Yes	Whether all incoming mail is automatically forwarded to another address
`emailAddress`	Yes	Email address to which messages should be automatically forwarded
`disposition`	Yes	The state in which messages should be left after being forwarded

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, side effects, permissions). The agent has no insight beyond the basic action.

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 concise (5 words) but lacks necessary context. It is front-loaded but overly minimal, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. An agent needs more context about the behavior and return values to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for each parameter, including an enum for disposition. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('automatic forwarding settings'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_auto_forwarding, but the name itself implies mutation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_auto_forwarding or create_forwarding_address. The description lacks context for usage.

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

Deploy Server