grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail.users.settings.sendAs.get

Retrieves a Gmail user's specified send-as alias details and returns its configuration as JSON, helping inspect alias, signature, and sending settings before updates.

Instructions

Gets the specified send-as alias. Fails with an HTTP 404 error if the specified address is not a member of the collection. For more information, see Manage aliases and signatures 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: create, delete, 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.
`sendAsEmail`	Yes	[URL path segment] The send-as alias to be retrieved.

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.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / sendAsEmail / description

Previous value: -"The send-as alias to be retrieved."New value: +"[URL path segment] The send-as alias to be retrieved."

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the key behavioral trait: a 404 failure when the address is not a member of the collection, plus the [HTTP GET] marker establishing read-only semantics. It does not mention OAuth scope requirements or whether the response includes verification status, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and failure mode are front-loaded, which is good, but the sentence about request bodies being built from typed parameters or read from body_file is dead weight for a GET with no request body and dilutes the useful content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is properly omitted, and the description covers identity, failure mode, and method. What remains missing is whether the caller needs specific scopes or admin privileges to read another user's alias — relevant given the userId path segment.

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 both required path parameters (userId, sendAsEmail) are already documented in the schema; the description adds nothing about them. It only clarifies the wrapper mechanics ('typed flags win over the params map', body_file), which is marginal added meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Gets the specified send-as alias') and then enumerates the sibling operations on the same resource (create, delete, list, patch, update, verify), so an agent can place it precisely among the sendAs family without inspecting other 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?

The sibling list implies this is the single-alias retrieval in contrast to list/patch/update, but the description never states the selection condition explicitly (e.g. 'use list to enumerate aliases, get when you already know the address'). The 404-on-missing note is the only concrete operational cue.

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

Deploy Server