Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.forwardingAddresses.delete

Delete a specified Gmail forwarding address and revoke any required verification. Use this for domain-wide delegated service accounts managing forwarding settings.

Instructions

Deletes the specified forwarding address and revokes any verification that may have been required. For more information, see Manage email forwarding. 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.
forwardingEmailYes[URL path segment] The forwarding address to be deleted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / forwardingEmail / description
      Previous value: -"The forwarding address to be deleted."New value: +"[URL path segment] The forwarding address to be deleted."
    • 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

A4.6/5.0
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 thoroughly: it discloses irreversibility, revocation of verification, the service-account auth requirement, the HTTP DELETE method, behavior under --readonly safety profiles, and the return format (post-delete state or empty JSON). It also explains how request bodies are constructed.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and side effects. It is somewhat dense and includes a slightly awkward sentence about request bodies, but the length is justified by the tool's destructive nature and auth constraints. Minor tightening would help, but it remains efficient.

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 the destructive nature, service-account restriction, six parameters, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: side effects, auth requirements, irreversibility, return format, body construction, and sibling context. An agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema by clarifying that typed parameters take precedence over the `params` map and that `body_file` can be used to supply a raw body, which aids correct usage of these advanced parameters.

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 ('Deletes the specified forwarding address') and adds the side effect of revoking verification. It also names the sibling operations (create, get, list) over the same resource, so an agent can distinguish this delete from the others 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?

It provides clear context by stating this method is only available to service account clients with domain-wide delegation, which is critical for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this vs. the sibling operations beyond naming them; no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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