grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail.users.settings.sendAs.create

Creates a custom From send-as alias in Gmail, validates SMTP settings, and handles ownership verification to mark the alias accepted or pending.

Instructions

Creates a custom "from" send-as alias. If an SMTP MSA is specified, Gmail will attempt to connect to the SMTP service to validate the configuration before creating the alias. If ownership verification is required for the alias, a message will be sent to the email address and the resource's verification status will be set to pending; otherwise, the resource will be created with verification status set to accepted. If a signature is provided, Gmail will sanitize the HTML before saving it with the alias. For more information, see [Manage aliases and signatures with the Gmail API](https://deve [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON SendAs object accepting displayName, isDefault, isPrimary, replyToAddress, sendAsEmail, signature, smtpMsa, treatAsAlias and 1 more fields; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, get, list, patch, update, verify.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`userId`	Yes	[URL path segment] User's email address. The special value "me" can be used to indicate the authenticated user.	me
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON SendAs object.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type SendAs: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`smtpMsa`	No
`isDefault`	No
`isPrimary`	No
`signature`	No
`displayName`	No
`sendAsEmail`	No
`treatAsAlias`	No
`replyToAddress`	No
`verificationStatus`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description

Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON SendAs object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type SendAs: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "displayName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "isDefault": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "isPrimary": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "replyToAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sendAsEmail": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signature": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "smtpMsa": {
+      "properties": {
+        "host": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "password": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "port": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "securityMode": {
+          "enum": [
+            "securityModeUnspecified",
+            "none",
+            "ssl",
+            "starttls"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "username": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "treatAsAlias": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "verificationStatus": {
+      "enum": [
+        "verificationStatusUnspecified",
+        "accepted",
+        "pending"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

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": {
+    "displayName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "isDefault": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "isPrimary": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "replyToAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sendAsEmail": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signature": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "smtpMsa": {
+      "properties": {
+        "host": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "password": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "port": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "securityMode": {
+          "enum": [
+            "securityModeUnspecified",
+            "none",
+            "ssl",
+            "starttls"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "username": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "treatAsAlias": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "verificationStatus": {
+      "enum": [
+        "verificationStatusUnspecified",
+        "accepted",
+        "pending"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Since no annotations were provided, the description must be highly informative. It details several complex behaviors not covered by the schema: attempting SMTP MSA validation, handling verification status (pending vs. accepted), and sanitizing HTML signatures.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly detailed but verbose. While every sentence is necessary to convey the complexity of the API call, the overall length could be slightly streamlined for maximum efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a complex, state-changing API endpoint with no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context on the full lifecycle of the operation, including validation and verification steps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

While the schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical functional meaning beyond the schema fields. It explains the mechanics of passing data (via `params` or `body_file`) and details the specific nature of the `smtpMsa` field (validation attempt).

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 clearly identifies the action (Creates) and the resource (custom 'from' send-as alias). It differentiates this operation from sibling tools by listing related operations like delete, get, and list within the description.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It specifies the operational context, noting that this is an HTTP POST request and is 'refused under --readonly safety profiles'. It also provides explicit guidance by listing all relevant siblings (delete, get, list, patch, update, verify), helping the agent route alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server