Skip to main content
Glama

insert_smime_info

Upload S/MIME certificates to configure email encryption for specific sender aliases in Gmail, enabling secure message signing and encryption.

Instructions

Insert (upload) the given S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sendAsEmailYesThe email address that appears in the 'From:' header
encryptedKeyPasswordYesEncrypted key password
pkcs12YesPKCS#12 format containing a single private/public key pair and certificate chain

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:1228-1241 (registration)
    Registration of the 'insert_smime_info' MCP tool, including input schema definition using Zod and the handler function that wraps the Gmail API call to users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.insert with OAuth handling.
    server.tool("insert_smime_info",
      "Insert (upload) the given S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias",
      {
        sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The email address that appears in the 'From:' header"),
        encryptedKeyPassword: z.string().describe("Encrypted key password"),
        pkcs12: z.string().describe("PKCS#12 format containing a single private/public key pair and certificate chain")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.insert({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail, requestBody: params })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the insert_smime_info tool: sendAsEmail, encryptedKeyPassword, and pkcs12.
    {
      sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The email address that appears in the 'From:' header"),
      encryptedKeyPassword: z.string().describe("Encrypted key password"),
      pkcs12: z.string().describe("PKCS#12 format containing a single private/public key pair and certificate chain")
    },
  • Handler implementation that uses the shared handleTool to authenticate and execute the Gmail API insertion of S/MIME info.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.insert({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail, requestBody: params })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Shared helper function used by all tools, including insert_smime_info, to handle OAuth2 client creation, credential validation, Gmail client initialization, and error handling.
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        return `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}`
      }
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, whether it replaces existing config, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about success/error behavior, how the S/MIME config relates to send-as, and any side effects. It falls short.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (insert/upload), the resource (S/MIME config), and the context (for a send-as alias). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_smime_info, get_smime_info, etc.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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