grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail.users.settings.cse.identities.create

Creates a client-side encryption identity authorized to send mail from a user account and publishes its S/MIME certificate to the Workspace domain directory for encrypted messaging.

Instructions

Creates and configures a client-side encryption identity that's authorized to send mail from the user account. Google publishes the S/MIME certificate to a shared domain-wide directory so that people within a Google Workspace organization can encrypt and send mail to the identity. For administrators managing identities and keypairs for users in their organization, requests require authorization with a service account that has [domain-wide delegation authority](https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/OAuth2Service [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON CseIdentity object accepting emailAddress, primaryKeyPairId, signAndEncryptKeyPairs; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, get, list, patch.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.
`userId`	Yes	[URL path segment] The requester's primary email address. To indicate the authenticated user, you can use the special value `me`.	me
`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. The body is a JSON CseIdentity object.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type CseIdentity: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`emailAddress`	No
`primaryKeyPairId`	No
`signAndEncryptKeyPairs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description

Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON CseIdentity object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type CseIdentity: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "emailAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "primaryKeyPairId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signAndEncryptKeyPairs": {
+      "properties": {
+        "encryptionKeyPairId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "signingKeyPairId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / userId / default
```
Added value: +"me"
```

changedInput schema / properties / userId / description

Previous value: -"The requester's primary email address. To indicate the authenticated user, you can use the special value `me`."New value: +"[URL path segment] The requester's primary email address. To indicate the authenticated user, you can use the special value `me`."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "emailAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "primaryKeyPairId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signAndEncryptKeyPairs": {
+      "properties": {
+        "encryptionKeyPairId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "signingKeyPairId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that this is an HTTP POST that 'creates or triggers a change,' that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that it requires a service account with domain-wide delegation authority. It also warns of a side effect (publishing the certificate to a domain-wide directory). It does not cover idempotency or what happens if the identity already exists.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers authorization, HTTP behavior, body details and sibling coverage. Sentences are dense but purposeful; the bracket-link authorizations and '[HTTP POST]' insertion make it slightly clunky without wasting space.

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 complex admin-facing CSE identity creation tool, the description covers purpose, authorization requirements, side effects and request-body construction. With an output schema present, it needn't explain the return resource in detail, so the remaining gap (idempotency/duplicate handling) is minor.

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 schema already documents userId, params, body_file, request_body and its CseIdentity fields. The description restates the body shape (emailAddress, primaryKeyPairId, signAndEncryptKeyPairs) and the params/body_file passing mechanism, but adds little meaning beyond the structured fields, making the 3 baseline appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Creates and configures a client-side encryption identity that's authorized to send mail.' It even explains the downstream effect (S/MIME certificate published to a domain-wide directory) and names the sibling operations over the same resource (delete, get, list, patch), so an agent can distinguish this create from related calls.

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 contextual guidance: 'For administrators managing identities and keypairs for users in their organization' and notes the service-account/domain-wide-delegation prerequisite. It names the sibling operations but does not explicitly say when to choose create vs patch (e.g., modifying an existing identity), leaving that inference to the agent.

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

Deploy Server