Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.getLanguage

Retrieve a Gmail user's language settings as JSON to inspect the configured display language for verification or troubleshooting.

Instructions

Gets language settings. For more information, see Manage language settings [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, getImap, 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
displayLanguageNo

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": {
+    "displayLanguage": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "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 burden. It discloses '[HTTP GET]' (read-only) and that JSON is returned, which is useful. But it omits anything about scope, permissions, or what the language settings actually represent, and the body-construction boilerplate is irrelevant for a GET.

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 leading sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the description then spends most of its length on request-body construction that a GET never uses, plus a long sibling roster. Those sentences don't fully earn their place for this operation.

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?

The output schema and full parameter coverage mean return values and argument details are covered elsewhere. However, the description never explains what language settings are or when an agent would need them, and the body_file/params boilerplate is noise for a read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that typed flags override the `params` map and `body_file` can supply the request body — generic construction semantics, and largely inapplicable to a bodyless GET request.

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 and resource: 'Gets language settings'. The trailing sibling list clarifies that this is one of several settings getters (getImap, getPop, getVacation), so an agent can place it. It doesn't explain what 'language settings' contains, but the purpose is distinct enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not. The sibling list names getAutoForwarding/getImap/getPop/getVacation/updateLanguage but never says which to choose for a given intent, so the agent must infer that 'getLanguage' reads language settings while 'updateLanguage' writes them.

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