grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail.users.settings.sendAs.update

Update a Gmail send-as alias's display name, signature, reply-to address, or default status so messages sent from that address show the correct identity.

Instructions

Updates a send-as alias. If a signature is provided, Gmail will sanitize the HTML before saving it with the alias. For more information, see Manage aliases and signatures with the Gmail API. Addresses other than the primary address for the account can only be updated by service account clients that have been delegated domain-wide authority [HTTP PUT] — updates the resource; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON SendAs object accepting displayName, isDefault, isPrimary, replyToAddress, sendAsEmail, signature, smtpMsa, treatAsAlias and 1 more fields; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: create, delete, get, list, patch, 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. The body is a JSON SendAs object.
`sendAsEmail`	Yes	[URL path segment] The send-as alias to be updated.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type SendAs: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description

Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON SendAs object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type SendAs: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "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"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / sendAsEmail / description

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

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses HTML sanitization of signatures, the delegation requirement, that it is an HTTP PUT refused under readonly profiles, and that it returns the response resource. Remaining gaps are permission scope names and full-replacement semantics, which keeps it below 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and most sentences earn their place, but the paragraph is dense, mixing a docs link, HTTP verb annotation, and a sibling dump into one block. The "and 1 more fields" phrasing is slightly imprecise.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, an output schema present, and 100% param coverage, the description covers auth, sanitization, safety-profile behavior, and return type adequately. The one notable omission is clarifying how update (PUT replacement) differs from patch, which matters for a mutation endpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the seven parameters; the description adds value by enumerating the accepted SendAs fields (displayName, isDefault, signature, smtpMsa, etc.) and clarifying that the body can be supplied via `params` or wholesale via `body_file`.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Updates a send-as alias") and the closing line names all siblings on the same resource (create, delete, get, list, patch, verify), so an agent can locate this tool within the family. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear operational context: the delegated domain-wide authority prerequisite for non-primary addresses and the refusal under --readonly safety profiles. However it never states when to prefer patch over update (i.e., partial vs full replacement), so the update/patch boundary is left for the agent to infer from the sibling name list.

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

Deploy Server