Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.forwardingAddresses.get

Retrieves the specified Gmail forwarding address for a user account and returns its settings as JSON.

Instructions

Gets the specified forwarding address. For more information, see Manage email forwarding [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

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 retrieved.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forwardingEmailNo
verificationStatusNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / forwardingEmail / description
      Previous value: -"The forwarding address to be retrieved."New value: +"[URL path segment] The forwarding address 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": {
+    "forwardingEmail": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verificationStatus": {
+      "enum": [
+        "verificationStatusUnspecified",
+        "accepted",
+        "pending"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does carry some weight: it discloses the HTTP GET verb, that the response is JSON, and links the forwarding-settings guide. However, a large chunk of the text describes request-body construction from `params`/`body_file`, which is irrelevant to a GET, and it says nothing about auth/permission requirements or whether the caller must be an admin.

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 sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the boilerplate sentence about request bodies, typed parameters versus the `params` map, and `body_file` is dead weight for a GET and dilutes the useful content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, and the doc link plus the sibling list give reasonable orientation. Still, for a settings read with zero annotations, it leaves out permission context and error behavior (what happens for a non-existent or unverified forwarding address).

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 description coverage is 100%, so userId and forwardingEmail are already documented in the schema; the description adds no extra meaning such as format constraints or behavior when the address is unregistered. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("Gets the specified forwarding address") and lists the sibling operations over the same resource (create, delete, list), so an agent can place it in the CRUD family. It stops short of saying how it differs functionally from the list sibling beyond the verb.

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 sibling enumeration implies when this tool is the right pick (single address retrieval rather than enumeration), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no prerequisites (e.g. that the address must already exist and be verified).

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