Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.setDefault

Sets the default S/MIME configuration for a specified Gmail send-as alias, ensuring messages sent from that alias use the chosen certificate.

Instructions

Sets the default S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias. For more information, see Manage S/MIME certificates with the Gmail API [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response 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, list.

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 meaningful traits: HTTP POST, that it 'creates or triggers a change', that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that it returns the API response resource as JSON. It omits auth/scope requirements and the effect on the currently-default config, which keeps it from 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, but the remainder is generic server-wide boilerplate about body construction and typed-vs-params precedence that adds little for a setDefault call. The trailing sibling enumeration is a fragment appended without context.

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?

For a 7-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety-profile behavior and response shape but leaves out what actually changes (the prior default losing default status) and any permission/S-MIME-configuration prerequisites. Adequate, but there are real gaps for a state-changing setting operation.

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% (all 7 params, including nested `params`, are documented), so the baseline is 3. The description does explain body construction precedence ('typed flags win over the params map', or read from `body_file`), but that same rule is already restated in the schema property descriptions, and the body-building detail is arguably irrelevant for this path-only endpoint.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: 'Sets the default S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias.' It also lists the sibling operations over the same resource (delete, get, insert, list), but only names them without explaining what distinguishes setDefault's role beyond the name itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance; the sibling list is a bare enumeration rather than routing logic. The only conditional behavior mentioned ('refused under --readonly safety profiles') is an environment constraint, not a usage rule.

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