Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gmail-mcp

gmail-mcp

by DimitrisPasakaleris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

append_emails

Add more Gmail messages to an existing .md, .json, or .jsonl file for pagination, so the next batch can be saved to the same file.

Instructions

Append more emails to an existing .md, .json, or .jsonl file.

Use this for pagination — fetch 50 emails, save them, then call this
tool to append the next 50 to the same file. Works with .md, .json,
and .jsonl files created by read_emails_full or search_and_save.

Required:
  message_ids (list[str]) — Gmail message IDs to fetch and append.
  save_path (str) — path to the existing file. File must exist.
    Supported extensions: .md, .json, .jsonl

Returns on success:
  {"ok": true, "data": {
    "appended": true,
    "path": "C:\Users\...\my-emails.md",
    "count": 50,
    "total_size_bytes": 320000
  }}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
save_pathYes
message_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the file-must-exist precondition, the supported extensions, the fact that IDs are re-fetched from Gmail (implying network/auth), and a concrete success payload. It omits error behavior (what happens on missing file, invalid ID, or unsupported extension) and duplicate handling.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a usage note and a compact Required/Returns breakdown. The JSON return sample is somewhat bulky but earns its place by documenting the response shape in the absence of an output schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, formats, parameter meaning, and return values. Remaining gaps are error/failure semantics and duplicate-ID behavior, which are minor but real for a write operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: message_ids is explained as "Gmail message IDs to fetch and append" and save_path as "path to the existing file. File must exist" with allowed extensions. It does not clarify ordering, duplicate IDs, or whether IDs must come from the same query.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Append more emails to an existing .md, .json, or .jsonl file") and names the file formats plus the sibling tools that create compatible files (read_emails_full, search_and_save). An agent can distinguish it from list_emails or read_emails without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit scenario ("Use this for pagination — fetch 50 emails, save them, then call this tool to append the next 50") and an implicit precondition ("File must exist"), which effectively excludes the create-new-file case. It does not explicitly name a when-not-to-use alternative, keeping it just below a 5.

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