grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail.users.settings.delegates.get

Retrieve the delegate relationship for a specified Gmail user by primary email address. Use to verify delegate access before managing or removing delegates.

Instructions

Gets the specified delegate. 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 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, delete, 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.
`delegateEmail`	Yes	[URL path segment] The email address of the user whose delegate relationship is to be retrieved.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`delegateEmail`	No
`verificationStatus`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / delegateEmail / description

Previous value: -"The email address of the user whose delegate relationship is to be retrieved."New value: +"[URL path segment] The email address of the user whose delegate relationship is to be retrieved."

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the HTTP method, the domain-wide authority auth requirement, and the primary-email identification rule. It stops short of describing failure modes or response shape details, but the auth disclosure is the highest-value piece.

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 scoping and auth constraints are front-loaded, but the trailing sentence about request bodies, typed flags vs params, and body_file is generic boilerplate irrelevant to a GET method, which dilutes the description for this tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining essentials: auth scope, identifier format, method, and sibling relationship. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 genuinely useful semantics the schema lacks: the delegate identifier must be a primary email address and not an alias. That constraint meaningfully affects how the agent fills delegateEmail.

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 ("Gets the specified delegate") and explicitly names its siblings (create, delete, list), so an agent can distinguish it from the other delegate tools without inspecting 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?

Provides a strong usage precondition — only available to service account clients with domain-wide delegated authority — plus the caveat that delegates must be referenced by primary email, not alias. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over delegates.list, but the context 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