Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.getPop

Retrieve a Gmail user's POP settings as JSON so you can inspect or verify email client download configuration.

Instructions

Gets POP 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, getImap, getLanguage, 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
dispositionNo
accessWindowNo

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": {
+    "accessWindow": {
+      "enum": [
+        "accessWindowUnspecified",
+        "disabled",
+        "fromNowOn",
+        "allMail"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "disposition": {
+      "enum": [
+        "dispositionUnspecified",
+        "leaveInInbox",
+        "archive",
+        "trash",
+        "markRead"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It notes '[HTTP GET]' and JSON return, but the remaining text about request bodies, typed-parameter precedence, and body_file is generic boilerplate irrelevant to a read-only settings fetch, and it says nothing about required OAuth scopes or exactly what POP settings are returned.

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 and sibling list are front-loaded and useful, but the middle sentence about request-body construction and body_file is wasted space for a GET tool and dilutes the actionable 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 values need not be explained, and the core purpose is stated. However, for a settings read a few more specifics (e.g. that it returns enable/disable state and access window) or a hint on comparison with getImap would make it complete.

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 schema already documents userId, query, params, dry_run, and body_file. The description's mention that 'typed flags win over the params map' and 'read whole from body_file' merely repeats schema text, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 POP settings', and the sibling list makes clear this is the read counterpart to updatePop. This is clear enough to distinguish from siblings, but the sibling names are listed without stating how it differs functionally from getImap.

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?

Listing the sibling tools gives context, but the description never says when to use getPop vs updatePop, nor that it requires an authenticated userId with the settings scope. Usage is only implied by the get/update naming convention.

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