Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Workspace MCP Server

Google Workspace MCP Server

by VGdotcom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

send_email

Send an email immediately using your Gmail account. Must include at least one recipient, subject, and body.

Instructions

Send an email immediately using the user's Gmail account. Requires at least one valid recipient address in the 'to' array.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toYes
bccNo
bodyYes
htmlNo
subjectYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'immediately' and a requirement for valid recipients, but omits side effects (e.g., irreversibility), authentication needs, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The requirement is stated upfront.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. Lacks details on input constraints, response format, and potential errors.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter meanings. Only 'to' is mentioned as requiring valid addresses; cc, bcc, body, html, subject are not described.

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 (send an email) and the resource (user's Gmail account). It distinguishes from sibling tools like draft_email by implying immediate sending. However, it could be more explicit about the resource being an email message.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draft_email or append_content. It only describes the basic function without context for selection.

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