Skip to main content
Glama

verify_send_as

Send a verification email to confirm a Gmail send-as alias, enabling secure email sending from alternative addresses.

Instructions

Sends a verification email to the specified send-as alias

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sendAsEmailYesThe send-as alias to be verified

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:1187-1198 (registration)
    Registration of the 'verify_send_as' MCP tool, including input schema (sendAsEmail string) and inline handler function that uses handleTool to send a verification email to the specified send-as alias via the Gmail API.
    server.tool("verify_send_as",
      "Sends a verification email to the specified send-as alias",
      {
        sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The send-as alias to be verified")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.verify({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The inline handler function for the verify_send_as tool. It invokes the shared handleTool utility with a Gmail API callback to call users.settings.sendAs.verify, which sends the verification email, and formats the response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.verify({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for verify_send_as tool using Zod: requires 'sendAsEmail' as a string.
    {
      sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The send-as alias to be verified")
    },
  • Shared helper function used by all tools, including verify_send_as, to create OAuth2 client, validate credentials, set up Gmail client, execute the provided API callback, and handle errors.
    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}`
      }
    }
  • Helper function called by handleTool to validate and refresh OAuth2 credentials if necessary, ensuring the Gmail API call succeeds.
    export const validateCredentials = async (oauth2Client: OAuth2Client) => {
      try {
        const { credentials } = oauth2Client
        if (!credentials) return false
    
        const expiryDate = credentials.expiry_date
        const needsRefresh = !expiryDate || expiryDate <= Date.now()
    
        if (!needsRefresh) return true
    
        if (!credentials.refresh_token) return false
    
        const { credentials: tokens } = await oauth2Client.refreshAccessToken()
        oauth2Client.setCredentials(tokens)
    
        fs.writeFileSync(GMAIL_CREDENTIALS_PATH, JSON.stringify(tokens, null, 2))
        return true
      } catch (error: any) { 
        return false
      }
    }
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 states the action but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, what happens if the alias doesn't exist, or the expected outcome (e.g., email sent 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 waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what verification entails, potential side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond the basic action.

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%, with the single parameter 'sendAsEmail' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is for specifying the alias, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the 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 action ('Sends a verification email') and the target resource ('specified send-as alias'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_send_as' or 'update_send_as', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the send-as alias must exist first), nor does it reference related tools like 'create_send_as' or 'get_send_as' for context, leaving usage unclear.

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