Skip to main content
Glama

send_gmail_message

Send emails via Gmail with support for attachments and alias addresses. Compose new messages or reply to existing threads.

Instructions

Sends an email using the user's Gmail account. Supports both new emails and replies with optional attachments. Supports Gmail's "Send As" feature to send from configured alias addresses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_google_emailYesThe user's Google email address. Required for authentication.
toYesRecipient email address.
subjectYesEmail subject.
bodyYesEmail body content (plain text or HTML).
body_formatNoEmail body format. Use 'plain' for plaintext or 'html' for HTML content.plain
ccNoOptional CC email address.
bccNoOptional BCC email address.
from_nameNoOptional sender display name (e.g., 'Peter Hartree'). If provided, the From header will be formatted as 'Name <email>'.
from_emailNoOptional 'Send As' alias email address. Must be configured in Gmail settings (Settings > Accounts > Send mail as). If not provided, uses the authenticated user's email.
thread_idNoOptional Gmail thread ID to reply within.
in_reply_toNoOptional RFC Message-ID of the message being replied to (e.g., '<message123@gmail.com>').
referencesNoOptional chain of Message-IDs for proper threading.
attachmentsNoOptional list of attachments. Each can have: "url" (fetch from URL — works with MCP attachment URLs from get_drive_file_download_url / get_gmail_attachment_content), OR "path" (file path, auto-encodes), OR "content" (standard base64, not urlsafe) + "filename". Optional "mime_type". Example: [{"url": "https://host/attachments/abc-123", "filename": "report.pdf"}]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context (e.g., supports replies, 'Send As' feature) but does not disclose authentication requirements beyond the required user_google_email, potential failure points (e.g., alias not configured), or side effects. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to quickly understand the tool's core functionality.

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?

Given 13 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers main capabilities (new emails, replies, attachments, aliases). It lacks details on error handling or post-send behavior, but for a sending tool with rich schema, it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes key features like replies and attachments but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It provides high-level context but not deeper per-parameter semantics.

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 verb 'sends', the resource 'email using the user's Gmail account', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying Gmail-specific features like 'Send As' and replies, setting it apart from draft_gmail_message and send_message.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description indicates it supports new emails, replies, and aliases, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draft_gmail_message or send_message. No 'when not to use' or comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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/HuntsDesk/ve-gws'

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