Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.getImap

Retrieves IMAP settings for a Gmail user, returning the configuration as JSON so you can manage email client access.

Instructions

Gets IMAP settings. For more information, see Configure POP and IMAP settings with the Gmail API [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: getAutoForwarding, 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
autoExpungeNo
maxFolderSizeNo
expungeBehaviorNo

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": {
+    "autoExpunge": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "enabled": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "expungeBehavior": {
+      "enum": [
+        "expungeBehaviorUnspecified",
+        "archive",
+        "trash",
+        "deleteForever"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxFolderSize": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the HTTP GET verb (signalling a read) and that a JSON resource is returned. It omits anything about required OAuth scopes/permissions or whether the response exposes enabled/auto-expunge/expunge-behavior fields.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the remainder mixes a docs link, an HTTP verb tag, generic request-building boilerplate, and a long comma-separated sibling list that dilutes the signal.

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 values need not be explained, and the core read semantics are covered. Still, the body/body_file discussion adds confusion rather than completeness, and nothing about auth or result shape leaves an agent partially uninformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description spends its parameter-related text on request-body construction (typed params vs `params` map, `body_file`), which is irrelevant and potentially misleading for a bodyless GET. It never mentions `userId` semantics ('me') or the `query` escape hatch.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Gets IMAP settings"), which is unambiguous for this Gmail settings endpoint. It does not, however, contrast itself directly with updateImap or getPop beyond an undifferentiated list of siblings.

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 tool is implicitly a read used when you need current IMAP configuration, and the sibling list implies updateImap exists for writes. But nothing states when to choose this over getPop/getAutoForwarding, nor any prerequisites 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