Gmail MCP Server

by arkaigrowth

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

gmail_authenticate

Authenticate a Gmail account via OAuth by opening a browser for Google consent.

Instructions

Authenticate a Gmail account via OAuth. Opens a browser for Google consent.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_authenticate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`alias`	No	Short name like "personal" or "work"
`email`	Yes	Google account email address
`description`	No	Human-readable description, e.g. "Work shared inbox"
`client_secret_path`	No	Path to Google OAuth client_secret.json file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions opening a browser for consent but omits crucial details like token persistence, error scenarios, or lifecycle of the authenticated session.

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 extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences. No extraneous words; every phrase adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple authentication tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return value or post-authentication state, which would help complete the picture.

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 description does not need to repeat parameter info. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 tool authenticates a Gmail account via OAuth, specifying the mechanism. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are focused on message or drive operations.

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, such as when authentication is needed before other Gmail operations or that it is typically a one-time setup.

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