grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail.users.settings.delegates.create

Add a delegate to a Gmail user and set verification status to accepted, skipping the verification email for same-organization Google Workspace accounts.

Instructions

Adds a delegate with its verification status set directly to accepted, without sending any verification email. The delegate user must be a member of the same Google Workspace organization as the delegator user. For more information, see Manage delegates. Gmail imposes limitations on the number of delegates and delegators each user in a Google Workspace organization can have. These limits depend on your organization, but in general each user can have up to 25 delegates and up to 10 delegators. A delegate user must b [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 Delegate object accepting delegateEmail, verificationStatus; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: 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] User's email address. The special value "me" can be used to indicate the authenticated user.	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 Delegate object.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type Delegate: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`delegateEmail`	No
`verificationStatus`	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 Delegate object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type Delegate: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "delegateEmail": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verificationStatus": {
+      "enum": [
+        "verificationStatusUnspecified",
+        "accepted",
+        "pending",
+        "rejected",
+        "expired"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

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

changedInput schema / properties / userId / description

Previous value: -"User's email address. The special value \"me\" can be used to indicate the authenticated user."New value: +"[URL path segment] User's email address. The special value \"me\" can be used to indicate the authenticated user."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "delegateEmail": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verificationStatus": {
+      "enum": [
+        "verificationStatusUnspecified",
+        "accepted",
+        "pending",
+        "rejected",
+        "expired"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this bypasses verification email, that it's an HTTP POST mutation refused under --readonly safety profiles, the org-membership and quota constraints, and the response format. The only blemish is the truncated sentence 'A delegate user must b', but the behavioral picture is otherwise rich.

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 point about no verification email is front-loaded, which is good, but the text becomes a dense run-on and includes a truncated, incomplete sentence ('A delegate user must b'). Content earns its place but the structure and grammar defects cost it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a mutation tool with an output schema, a fully-covered input schema, and nested body, the description provides everything an agent needs: mutation semantics, auth/org preconditions, quota context, and body-passing guidance. Nothing essential 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 would be 3, but the description adds real value by naming the body fields (delegateEmail, verificationStatus) and explaining how to supply them via `params` or `body_file`. That goes beyond what the schema alone conveys about body construction.

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+resource (adds a delegate) with the key differentiator: verification status set directly to `accepted` without sending a verification email. It also names the sibling operations (delete, get, list) over the same resource, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explains the precondition (delegate must be in the same Google Workspace organization) and the organizational limit context (25 delegates / 10 delegators per user), which frames when this is appropriate. It lists siblings but doesn't explicitly say when to prefer an alternative verification flow, leaving a small inference gap.

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

Deploy Server