Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.delegates.list

List delegates for a specified Gmail account to review who can access the mailbox and audit shared access permissions.

Instructions

Lists the delegates for the specified account. For more information, see Manage delegates. 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, get.

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.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
delegatesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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": {
+    "delegates": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "delegateEmail": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verificationStatus": {
+            "enum": [
+              "verificationStatusUnspecified",
+              "accepted",
+              "pending",
+              "rejected",
+              "expired"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 flag the critical behavioral gate: domain-wide delegation via service account, which is the main failure mode for this endpoint. It also notes the HTTP method and that the call builds a request from typed params or a body file, though it doesn't say anything about pagination or result ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the decisive auth constraint are front-loaded, and the sibling list is compact. The mid-section boilerplate ('Returns the requested resource as JSON', explaining body construction) is generic across this server and is the least earned part of the text.

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 single-required-param list operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, access prerequisite, and alternatives — enough to call it correctly. Output shape need not be described since the output schema exists, and there is little else an agent needs.

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 coverage is 100%, so userId, query, params, dry_run and body_file are already documented. The description only adds the precedence rule (typed flags win over the params map) and the body_file alternative, which largely restates what the schema descriptions already say — the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Lists the delegates for the specified account') and explicitly names the sibling operations on the same resource (create, delete, get), 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a hard applicability constraint — only usable by service account clients with domain-wide delegation — and points to the guide, plus names the sibling alternatives. It stops short of stating an explicit selection rule (e.g. use get for a single delegate), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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