grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail.users.settings.cse.keypairs.get

Retrieve a Gmail user's existing client-side encryption key pair to inspect key details or verify configuration.

Instructions

Retrieves an existing client-side encryption key pair. 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.googleapis.com/auth/gmail.settings.basic scope. For users managing their own identities and keypairs, requests require [hardware key encryption](https://s [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, disable, enable, list, obliterate.

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.
`keyPairId`	Yes	[URL path segment] The identifier of the key pair to retrieve.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pem`	No
`pkcs7`	No
`keyPairId`	No
`disableTime`	No
`enablementState`	No
`privateKeyMetadata`	No
`subjectEmailAddresses`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / keyPairId / description

Previous value: -"The identifier of the key pair to retrieve."New value: +"[URL path segment] The identifier of the key pair to retrieve."

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": {
+    "disableTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "enablementState": {
+      "enum": [
+        "stateUnspecified",
+        "enabled",
+        "disabled"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "keyPairId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pem": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pkcs7": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "privateKeyMetadata": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "hardwareKeyMetadata": {
+            "properties": {
+              "description": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "kaclsKeyMetadata": {
+            "properties": {
+              "kaclsData": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "kaclsUri": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "privateKeyMetadataId": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "subjectEmailAddresses": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the HTTP GET method, the returned JSON resource, and detailed authorization requirements (service account with domain-wide delegation for admins vs. hardware key encryption for self-managing users). It does not cover error or rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 and the sibling list is a useful, compact close. However, it includes lengthy auth URLs and a request-body-building sentence ('body_file', 'typed flags win') that is irrelevant and potentially confusing for a bodyless GET request.

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 read-only GET tool with an output schema already present, the description covers what matters: the operation, HTTP method, and the two distinct authorization paths. Only the missing acknowledgment of the output-schema return shape and irrelevant body-file boilerplate keep it below a 5.

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, keyPairId, and the generic params/body_file/query fields. The description adds only a generic note that typed parameters override the params map, which is boilerplate rather than resource-specific meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves an existing client-side encryption key pair') and explicitly enumerates the sibling operations on the same resource (create, disable, enable, list, obliterate), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Naming the siblings implies how this tool relates to them, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g. 'use get for a single keypair, list to enumerate'). The routing is left to inference from the 'get' naming convention.

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

Deploy Server