Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.cse.identities.delete

Deletes a client-side encryption identity, preventing the authenticated user from sending encrypted messages with it; this action is irreversible, so create a new identity to replace it.

Instructions

Deletes a client-side encryption identity. The authenticated user can no longer use the identity to send encrypted messages. You cannot restore the identity after you delete it. Instead, use the CreateCseIdentity method to create another identity with the same configuration. 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/OAuth2ServiceAccoun [HTTP DELETE] — removes the resource; irreversible unless the API documents a trash/undo flow; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the post-delete resource state (or empty) 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, get, list, patch.

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 requester's primary email address. To indicate the authenticated user, you can use the special value `me`.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.
cseEmailAddressYes[URL path segment] The primary email address associated with the client-side encryption identity configuration that's removed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / cseEmailAddress / description
      Previous value: -"The primary email address associated with the client-side encryption identity configuration that's removed."New value: +"[URL path segment] The primary email address associated with the client-side encryption identity configuration that's removed."
    • 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`."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: irreversibility ('You cannot restore the identity'), the post-condition on sending, the domain-wide-delegation service-account auth requirement, and the return shape are all disclosed. The appended generic '[HTTP DELETE]' boilerplate adds little but does not hurt.

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 and irreversibility are front-loaded, which is good, but the tail contains generic scaffolding ('request bodies are built from the typed parameters ... or read whole from body_file') that is irrelevant to a bodyless DELETE, plus a truncated URL. Roughly a third of the text does not earn 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?

With no output schema, the description does supply the return value ('post-delete resource state (or empty) as JSON'), the irreversibility, and the auth model — enough for an agent to call correctly. Only the credential-delegation framing for non-admin callers is left implicit.

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 and cseEmailAddress are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own beyond the auth note, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Deletes a client-side encryption identity.' It even names the sibling set over the same resource (create, get, list, patch), making the operation unmistakable without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the consequence ('can no longer use the identity to send encrypted messages') and the alternative ('use the CreateCseIdentity method to create another identity'). It stops short of contrasting delete against non-destructive options like patch, but the exclusion logic 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

Other Tools