Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.sendAs.list

List all send-as aliases for a Gmail account, including the primary address and custom from addresses, so you can review available sender identities.

Instructions

Lists the send-as aliases for the specified account. The result includes the primary send-as address associated with the account as well as any custom "from" aliases. 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, get, patch, update, verify.

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
sendAsNo

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": {
+    "sendAs": {
+      "items": {
+        "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"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state '[HTTP GET]' and that the tool 'Returns the requested resource as JSON', which signals a read operation, but it does not mention authorization scopes, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. The body-building note is generic and largely irrelevant for a GET list operation.

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 and the result scope is stated efficiently. However, the sentence about request bodies being built from typed parameters or read from body_file is irrelevant to a GET list operation, and the sibling list, while useful, adds length without mapping when each alternative applies.

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 the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, read-only HTTP method, result contents, and relevant siblings. The remaining gap is the absence of authorization or operational context, which is notable given there are no annotations but not severe for a simple listing 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including userId, query, params, dry_run, and body_file. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; its mention of typed parameters winning over the params map and body_file behavior duplicates what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the send-as aliases for the specified account.' It further clarifies the result contents with primary and custom 'from' aliases, and it distinguishes this tool from sibling operations by naming create, delete, get, patch, update, and verify.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly indicates a listing operation and lists sibling tools over the same resource, which implicitly tells the agent when to choose this over get/create/delete/patch/update/verify. It does not explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites, but the context is clear.

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