Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.filters.list

Lists Gmail message filters for a specified user and returns them as JSON so you can review or manage inbox rules.

Instructions

Lists the message filters of a Gmail user. For more information, see Manage Gmail filters [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
filterNo

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": {
+    "filter": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "action": {
+            "properties": {
+              "addLabelIds": {
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              },
+              "forward": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "removeLabelIds": {
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "criteria": {
+            "properties": {
+              "excludeChats": {
+                "type": "boolean"
+              },
+              "from": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "hasAttachment": {
+                "type": "boolean"
+              },
+              "negatedQuery": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "query": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "size": {
+                "type": "integer"
+              },
+              "sizeComparison": {
+                "enum": [
+                  "unspecified",
+                  "smaller",
+                  "larger"
+                ],
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "subject": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "to": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the HTTP GET verb (implying a read-only, safe operation) and points to Google's filter-management guide, but the rest of the text is generic request-body plumbing that is irrelevant for a GET endpoint and says nothing about scopes, permissions, or whether the full set of filters is returned in one shot.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the sibling pointer is efficient, but the middle sentence about building request bodies from typed parameters or body_file is boilerplate that does not apply to a GET list call and dilutes the definition. Roughly half the text fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema (so return shape needn't be described), a doc link, and explicit sibling operations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of permission/scope context, which matters little for a read-only list.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters, including userId with its 'me' default and the dry_run/body_file escape hatches, are already documented. The description adds a small amount of framework-level semantics (typed flags win over the params map; body_file bypasses parameter building), which is more than the baseline for a fully-described 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 ('Lists the message filters of a Gmail user') plus the operating scope (a single Gmail user), and it names the sibling operations over the same resource (create, delete, get). An agent can immediately tell this is the enumerating operation and distinguish it from the single-item get.

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?

The 'Siblings over the same resource: create, delete, get' line implicitly tells the agent this is the enumeration variant, but it never states when to prefer list over get or what preconditions exist. Usage is inferable from the name plus the sibling mention rather than explicitly guided.

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