grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail.users.settings.cse.identities.patch

Updates the key pair associated with an existing client-side encryption identity, validating the new pair against Google's S/MIME certificate profiles.

Instructions

Associates a different key pair with an existing client-side encryption identity. The updated key pair must validate against Google's S/MIME certificate profiles. For administrators managing identities and keypairs for users in their organization, requests require authorization with a service account that has domain-wide delegation authority to impersonate users with the https://www [HTTP PATCH] — updates the resource; 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 paramsor whole viabody_file` Siblings over the same resource: create, delete, get, list.

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.
`emailAddress`	Yes	[URL path segment] The email address of the client-side encryption identity to update.
`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"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / emailAddress / description

Previous value: -"The email address of the client-side encryption identity to update."New value: +"[URL path segment] The email address of the client-side encryption identity to update."

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that this is a PATCH mutation, that it is 'refused under --readonly safety profiles,' the authorization model (service account + domain-wide delegation), and that it returns the API response resource as JSON. It stops short of explaining PATCH partial-update semantics for unmentioned fields, which is the one meaningful gap.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the text contains a malformed/truncated fragment ('`https://www [HTTP PATCH]') and crams PATCH semantics, safety-profile behavior, return format, and body-delivery mechanics into one run-on paragraph. The information is useful but the structure is messy.

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?

Output schema exists, yet auth model, mutation semantics, body field list, and sibling enumeration are all covered. It is nearly complete for a mutation tool; only explicit partial-update behavior for omitted fields is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by naming the CseIdentity body fields (emailAddress, primaryKeyPairId, signAndEncryptKeyPairs) and explaining the params-vs-body_file delivery mechanism, which the schema alone does not make operationally obvious.

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: 'Associates a different key pair with an existing client-side encryption identity,' and explicitly frames the operation as a PATCH that updates the resource. It also enumerates the sibling operations (create, delete, get, list) over the same resource, so the agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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 context: the new key pair must validate against Google's S/MIME certificate profiles, and administrators need a service account with domain-wide delegation. It names the sibling operations but does not explicitly state when to prefer create vs patch (e.g., new identity vs changing keypair); the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server