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

MCP Google Multi-Account Server

by bkbaheti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gmail_reply_in_thread

Reply to existing email threads by creating a draft or sending immediately. Works across multiple Google accounts to keep replies in the original conversation.

Instructions

Reply to an existing email thread. Creates a draft reply and optionally sends it. Requires compose or 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>",
      "threadId": "<threadId>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>",
      "inReplyTo": "<inReplyTo>",
      "references": "<references>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_reply_in_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC email address(es)
toYesRecipient email address(es)
bccNoBCC email address(es)
bodyYesReply body (plain text, or HTML when bodyFormat="html")
confirmNoRequired if sendImmediately is true. Safety gate for sending.
subjectYesEmail subject (typically Re: original subject)
threadIdYesThe thread ID to reply in
accountIdYesThe Google account ID, alias, or email
inReplyToYesMessage-ID of the message being replied to
bodyFormatNoBody content type. "text" (default) sends as text/plain with RFC 3676 format=flowed so clients reflow paragraphs instead of rendering hard wraps. "html" sends as text/html for HTML-formatted bodies.
referencesYesReferences header (Message-ID chain for threading)
sendImmediatelyNoIf true AND confirm is true, send immediately instead of creating a draft

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the two main behaviors (creating a draft and optionally sending) and the required OAuth scope. It does not mention the confirm gate for sending, but that is covered in the schema.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the draft/send behavior and auth requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively communicates the core action, auth prerequisites, and draft-vs-send options. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's fields; it only states the overall function and scope requirement.

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 and resource: 'Reply to an existing email thread' clearly states the action. It further clarifies that it creates a draft and optionally sends, distinguishing it from generic draft creation or send-only tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'Reply to an existing email thread' clearly indicates the intended use case versus creating new drafts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of a 5.

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