Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.get

Retrieves the S/MIME certificate configuration for a Gmail send-as alias so you can inspect certificate details before managing or troubleshooting secure email signing.

Instructions

Gets the specified S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias. For more information, see Manage S/MIME certificates 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: delete, insert, list, setDefault.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes[URL path segment] The immutable ID for the SmimeInfo.
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] The 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.
sendAsEmailYes[URL path segment] The email address that appears in the "From:" header for mail sent using this alias.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
pemNo
pkcs12No
issuerCnNo
isDefaultNo
expirationNo
encryptedKeyPasswordNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"The immutable ID for the SmimeInfo."New value: +"[URL path segment] The immutable ID for the SmimeInfo."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sendAsEmail / description
      Previous value: -"The email address that appears in the \"From:\" header for mail sent using this alias."New value: +"[URL path segment] The email address that appears in the \"From:\" header for mail sent using this alias."
    • addedInput schema / properties / userId / default
      Added value: +"me"
    • changedInput schema / properties / userId / description
      Previous value: -"The user's email address. The special value `me` can be used to indicate the authenticated user."New value: +"[URL path segment] The user's email address. The special value `me` can be used to indicate the authenticated user."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "encryptedKeyPassword": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "expiration": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "isDefault": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "issuerCn": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pem": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pkcs12": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose that this is an HTTP GET returning the resource as JSON and links the S/MIME guide, which helps with auth context. It stops short of stating permission requirements for reading S/MIME certificates or what happens on an unknown ID.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the trailing boilerplate about request bodies, typed flags versus the params map, and body_file is irrelevant noise for a bodyless GET and dilutes the signal.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description says the resource comes back as JSON. However, the body-construction boilerplate describes capabilities this GET does not use, leaving the description slightly misleading rather than simply incomplete.

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% and the schema already explains userId ('me'), sendAsEmail, and id as URL path segments. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets the specified S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias') and names the sibling operations on the same resource (delete, insert, list, setDefault), so an agent can place it precisely in the smimeInfo family.

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 signals that this is the single-item read versus list/insert/delete/setDefault, but no explicit condition is given for choosing get over list, nor any prerequisite such as needing the IDs returned by list first.

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