Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.forwardingAddresses.list

List forwarding addresses for a specified Gmail account to review and manage email forwarding settings.

Instructions

Lists the forwarding addresses for the specified account. 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, 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
forwardingAddressesNo

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": {
+    "forwardingAddresses": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "forwardingEmail": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verificationStatus": {
+            "enum": [
+              "verificationStatusUnspecified",
+              "accepted",
+              "pending"
+            ],
+            "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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the HTTP verb ([HTTP GET]) and the JSON return shape, which tells the agent this is a non-mutating read. It omits auth/scope requirements, whether results are paginated or capped, and whether the returned addresses include verification status — meaningful gaps for a settings-listing call.

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 statement and sibling list are front-loaded and earn their place. The middle sentence about request bodies being built from typed parameters or read from `body_file` is dead weight for a GET endpoint and dilutes an otherwise tight definition, and the documentation link plus [HTTP GET] tag add clutter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the 100%-covered input schema handles parameters. What remains missing is auth scope and result-size/pagination behavior, which matters for a settings enumeration but is a modest gap given the rich schema and sibling list.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents userId (default "me"), query, params, dry_run, and body_file in detail. The description adds only "specified account," echoing the userId semantics without new detail, and the generic request-body/body_file sentence merely restates the schema. No compensation is needed but no extra meaning is added.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Lists the forwarding addresses") scoped to "the specified account," and the closing sentence enumerates the sibling operations (create, delete, get) on the same resource. An agent can distinguish this from get/create/delete 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?

Naming the siblings "create, delete, get" implicitly establishes that this tool is the enumeration path rather than the single-resource fetch or mutation path. However, it never states an explicit condition like "use get when you know the address" or any prerequisite such as required OAuth scope, so the routing signal is clear but not fully spelled out.

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