Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.list

List S/MIME configurations for a specified Gmail send-as alias to check which certificates are linked to that From address.

Instructions

Lists S/MIME configs 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, get, insert, setDefault.

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] 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
smimeInfoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • 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": {
+    "smimeInfo": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "encryptedKeyPassword": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "expiration": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "isDefault": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "issuerCn": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "pem": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "pkcs12": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the HTTP method ([HTTP GET]), implying a safe read, and that the resource is returned as JSON. But it omits pagination (pageToken/nextPageToken) behavior and any scoping/permission prerequisites, and it spends a sentence on request-body construction from typed parameters or body_file that is irrelevant to a bodyless GET, which risks steering the agent toward unnecessary parameters.

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 core purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first and last sentences, which is good structure. The middle sentence, however, bundles a documentation link with generic request-body boilerplate ('typed flags win over the params map', 'read whole from body_file') that is dead weight for a GET with no body 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 the return shape need not be spelled out, and the two required path parameters are fully covered by the schema. Still missing for a settings-scoped read are pagination behavior and any indication of the OAuth scope or admin rights required to read S/MIME configuration, which is the sort of thing an agent needs before attempting the call.

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 (including the 'me' shortcut) and sendAsEmail, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds the tie between sendAsEmail and the 'specified send-as alias'; it says nothing about the generic query/params/dry_run/body_file knobs, which the schema already covers.

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 gives a specific verb and resource with its scope: 'Lists S/MIME configs for the specified send-as alias.' It also enumerates the other operations over the same resource (delete, get, insert, setDefault), so the agent can place this tool relative to its siblings. It stops short of a 5 because 'S/MIME config' itself is not illustrated, an agent must infer what the resource contains.

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 ('delete, get, insert, setDefault') implies that this tool is the enumeration member of the group, and the guide link offers further context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention that listing is the prerequisite step before calling setDefault or delete with a certificate ID, so usage must be inferred.

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