Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.getAutoForwarding

Retrieves a Gmail account's auto-forwarding configuration to check if forwarding is enabled and where messages are sent.

Instructions

Gets the auto-forwarding setting 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: getImap, getLanguage, getPop, getVacation, updateAutoForwarding, updateImap, updateLanguage, updatePop, updateVacation.

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
enabledNo
dispositionNo
emailAddressNo

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": {
+    "disposition": {
+      "enum": [
+        "dispositionUnspecified",
+        "leaveInInbox",
+        "archive",
+        "trash",
+        "markRead"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "emailAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "enabled": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden, but it does disclose HTTP GET and that the resource is returned as JSON, indicating a read-only operation. It does not mention permissions, authorization requirements, or what the response contains beyond JSON, though the output schema covers return shape.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the description includes generic request-body construction boilerplate that is irrelevant for a GET with no request body. The sibling list is long and adds bulk without much routing value.

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 simple read-only settings GET, the description provides the resource, method, and related siblings, and an output schema exists for return values. Missing authorization or permission context keeps it from being fully complete, but the essential calling information is present.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds only generic boilerplate about typed parameters winning over the params map and body_file, which does not add meaningful semantics for this GET endpoint beyond what the schema already says.

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: it gets the auto-forwarding setting for the specified account. It also names the sibling settings tools over the same resource, making the scope distinguishable without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the sibling list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus getImap, getPop, or updateAutoForwarding. An agent can infer it reads the current forwarding configuration, but the description does not spell out conditions or exclusions.

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