Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
worksuite-mcp

worksuite-mcp

by chadvdwww-hash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Search Gmail Messages

search_gmail_messages
Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches Gmail messages with standard search operators, returning message and thread IDs with direct links. Supports pagination for large result sets.

Instructions

Searches messages in a user's Gmail account based on a query. Returns both Message IDs and Thread IDs for each found message, along with Gmail web interface links for manual verification. Supports pagination via page_token parameter.

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": {
      "query": "<query>",
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>"
    },
    "name": "search_gmail_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe search query. Supports standard Gmail search operators.
user_google_emailYesThe user's Google email address. Required.
page_sizeNoThe maximum number of messages to return. Defaults to 10.
page_tokenNoToken for retrieving the next page of results. Use the next_page_token from a previous response.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing return payload (IDs and links) and pagination support via page_token, providing context beyond the structured fields. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return values, and pagination. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant or vague wording.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), a complete schema, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return behavior, and pagination. No additional context is needed for an agent to 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains each parameter in detail (e.g., query supports Gmail search operators, page_token for pagination). The description adds little beyond restating pagination support ('Supports pagination via page_token parameter'), so it doesn't significantly enhance the schema's meaning.

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's function: 'Searches messages in a user's Gmail account based on a query.' This uses a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('messages in a user's Gmail account'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_gmail_message_content' by indicating it returns IDs and web links rather than message content.

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 description provides clear usage context by specifying that it returns Message IDs, Thread IDs, and Gmail web links for manual verification, implying use for search/discovery rather than content retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls 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