Skip to main content
Glama

untrash_thread

Restore deleted email threads from the trash in Gmail. Use this tool to recover accidentally removed conversations by providing the thread ID.

Instructions

Remove a thread from the trash

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the thread to remove from trash

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:785-796 (registration)
    Registers the 'untrash_thread' MCP tool, including inline schema definition and handler function. The handler uses handleTool to authenticate and call the Gmail API's users.threads.untrash method to remove the specified thread from trash.
    server.tool("untrash_thread",
      "Remove a thread from the trash",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to remove from trash")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.untrash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The handler function for untrash_thread tool, which invokes the Gmail API to untrash the thread by ID after authentication via handleTool.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.untrash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for the untrash_thread tool, validating the required 'id' parameter as a string.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to remove from trash")
    },
  • Shared helper function used by untrash_thread (and other tools) to handle OAuth2 authentication, Gmail client creation, and API call execution with 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}`
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a reversible operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens if the thread isn't in trash. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what happens after untrashing (e.g., where the thread goes), potential side effects, or error conditions. 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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('remove') and target resource ('a thread from the trash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'untrash_message', but the distinction is implied through the resource type.

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 like 'delete_thread' or 'trash_thread', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the thread must already be in trash). The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HitmanLy007/gmail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server