Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Google Multi-Account Server

MCP Google Multi-Account Server

by bkbaheti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gmail_archive

Archive a Gmail message by removing it from the inbox, while keeping it searchable in All Mail.

Instructions

Archive a Gmail message by removing it from INBOX. The message remains in All Mail and can still be found via search. Requires full scope.

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_archive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountIdYesThe Google account ID, alias, or email
messageIdYesThe message ID to archive

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the core behavior (removal from INBOX), the persistence (All Mail), searchability, and a permission requirement ('full scope'). It could add details like idempotency or error handling, but the key behavioral facts are covered.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value (effect, retention, requirement). No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, side effects, and requirements. It could mention what happens if the message is already archived or whether the operation is idempotent, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for accountId and messageId. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Archive' with a clear resource ('Gmail message') and explicitly states the action ('removing it from INBOX'). It distinguishes archive from trash or delete by noting the message remains in All Mail and searchable.

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?

The description makes the semantic clear, implying it should be used for archiving rather than deleting. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_trash or gmail_modify_labels, nor does it provide exclusions.

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