grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

chat.customEmojis.get

Fetches details about a Google Chat custom emoji by resource name, returning metadata as JSON for Workspace accounts where custom emojis are enabled.

Instructions

Returns details about a custom emoji. Custom emojis are only available for Google Workspace accounts, and the administrator must turn custom emojis on for the organization. For more information, see Learn about custom emojis in Google Chat and Manage custom emoji permissions. Requires user authentication with one of the following [authorization scopes](https://developers.google.com/workspace/chat/authenticate-authori [HTTP GET]. Returns the requested resource as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: create, delete, list.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. Resource name of the custom emoji. Format: `customEmojis/{customEmoji}` You can use the emoji name as an alias for `{customEmoji}`. For example, `cust
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uid`	No
`name`	No
`payload`	No
`emojiName`	No
`temporaryImageUri`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Required. Resource name of the custom emoji. Format: `customEmojis/{customEmoji}` You can use the emoji name as an alias for `{customEmoji}`. For example, `cust"New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. Resource name of the custom emoji. Format: `customEmojis/{customEmoji}` You can use the emoji name as an alias for `{customEmoji}`. For example, `cust"

addedInput schema / properties / name / pattern
```
Added value: +"^customEmojis/[^/]+$"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "emojiName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "payload": {
+      "properties": {
+        "fileContent": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "filename": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "temporaryImageUri": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "uid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose meaningful traits: HTTP GET, required OAuth scopes, admin-level enablement prerequisite, and JSON return. It stops short of error behavior or permission failure modes, but that is a minor gap for a read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body pads with two support links, a truncated scope sentence, and generic request-body boilerplate that is irrelevant to a parameterless GET. Several sentences don't earn their 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the prerequisites plus auth/scopes are covered. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor missing detail about failure conditions.

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 schema already fully documents the name pattern and the params/body_file/dry_run flags. The description restates the 'typed flags win over params map' precedence that the schema also conveys, adding little beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns details about') and resource ('a custom emoji'), and matches it against siblings create/delete/list so the agent can tell this is the read operation. The intent is unmistakable.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use: Workspace account, org admin must enable custom emojis, and user auth is required. It does not explicitly say 'use list first to discover emoji names' or spell out when-not, but the read context against siblings is clear.

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

Deploy Server