Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.getProfile

Retrieve the authenticated user's Gmail profile and return it as JSON to identify the active account and its profile details.

Instructions

Gets the current user's Gmail profile [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: stop, watch.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
userIdYes[URL path segment] The user's email address. The special value `me` can be used to indicate the authenticated user.me
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
historyIdNo
emailAddressNo
threadsTotalNo
messagesTotalNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / userId / default
      Added value: +"me"
    • changedInput schema / properties / userId / description
      Previous value: -"The user's email address. The special value `me` can be used to indicate the authenticated user."New value: +"[URL path segment] The user's email address. The special value `me` can be used to indicate the authenticated user."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "emailAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "historyId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "messagesTotal": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "threadsTotal": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses that this is an HTTP GET returning JSON, which is useful, but the entire middle sentence about building request bodies from typed parameters or `body_file` is boilerplate that does not apply to a bodyless profile read and could send an agent down a wrong path. Nothing is said about auth/scope requirements or rate limits.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but the middle sentence about request-body construction is dead weight for a GET and dilutes the signal. Two of three sentences earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly identifies the operation as a read. However, for a user-scoped Gmail endpoint it should at least say the call acts on the authenticated account and what access it needs, rather than spending space on irrelevant body-building mechanics.

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 userId, params, query, dry_run and body_file are already documented. The description's note that "typed flags win over the `params` map" merely restates the schema wording, adding no new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first clause gives a specific verb and resource: "Gets the current user's Gmail profile," plus the HTTP method. It names the co-located siblings (stop, watch) but does not explain what distinguishes them, so the agent knows the resource but not the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of gmail.users.watch or gmail.users.stop, nor any prerequisite (e.g. an authenticated user, profile scope). Naming siblings without a selection condition gives no real routing guidance.

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