Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.delegates.delete

Remove a Gmail delegate by primary email address and revoke any pending verification. Use it to revoke another user's delegated access to a mailbox.

Instructions

Removes the specified delegate (which can be of any verification status), and revokes any verification that may have been required for using it. For more information, see Manage delegates. A delegate user must be referred to by their primary email address, and not an email alias. This method is only available to service account clients that have been delegated domain-wide authority [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.

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] User's email address. The special value "me" can be used to indicate the authenticated user.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.
delegateEmailYes[URL path segment] The email address of the user to be removed as a delegate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / delegateEmail / description
      Previous value: -"The email address of the user to be removed as a delegate."New value: +"[URL path segment] The email address of the user to be removed as a delegate."
    • 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."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden, and it discloses key traits: irreversibility, that verification is revoked as a side effect, the domain-wide auth requirement, and that it is refused under readonly safety profiles. Some of this is generic wrapper text (the '[HTTP DELETE]' and body_file wording) rather than tool-specific detail, 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 tool-specific content is front-loaded and efficient in the first three sentences, but it then appends generic wrapper boilerplate about request bodies, typed flags versus the params map, and the body_file parameter that is not specific to this operation and somewhat dilutes the signal.

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 usefully states the return value (the post-delete resource state or empty as JSON) and covers the critical auth prerequisite and destructive nature. Given two required parameters and full schema coverage, this is essentially complete for a delete operation.

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 genuine meaning beyond the schema by constraining delegateEmail to the primary email address rather than an alias. The remaining parameters (userId, dry_run, body_file, params) are left entirely to the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Removes the specified delegate'), clarifies the scope ('any verification status') and the side effect (revoking verification). It also names the sibling operations on the same resource (create, get, list), so an 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?

It gives concrete eligibility context: only available to service account clients with delegated domain-wide authority, and the delegate must be specified by primary email, not an alias. It names sibling alternatives but does not explicitly state the conditions for choosing between them, so it stops short of a 5.

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