Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

gmail.users.settings.sendAs.verify

Sends a verification email to a pending send-as alias address so Gmail can confirm ownership of the alias.

Instructions

Sends a verification email to the specified send-as alias address. The verification status must be pending. For more information, see Manage aliases and signatures with the Gmail API. This method is only available to service account clients that have been delegated domain-wide authority [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: create, delete, get, list, patch, update.

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.
sendAsEmailYes[URL path segment] The send-as alias to be verified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / sendAsEmail / description
      Previous value: -"The send-as alias to be verified."New value: +"[URL path segment] The send-as alias to be verified."
    • 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."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden well: it identifies this as a POST that creates or triggers a change, says readonly profiles refuse it, specifies auth scope, and describes response/body handling. It stops short of full behavioral detail such as rate limits or exact side effects.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent blocks about auth, mutation safety, and return handling are relevant. The long combined sentence about response/body handling and the sibling list makes it denser than ideal, but there is little outright waste.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: auth scope, pending-status prerequisite, readonly refusal, and response/body handling. It could be more complete about the returned resource fields or post-call effects.

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 parameters like userId, sendAsEmail, params, and body_file are already documented in the schema. The description restates typed-parameter precedence and body_file behavior but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: sends a verification email to a send-as alias. It also lists sibling tools over the same resource, but does not explicitly explain how verify differs from get/patch/update beyond the verb, so sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 gives clear prerequisites: the alias's verification status must be pending, and only service-account clients with domain-wide delegation can call it. It also states it is refused under readonly profiles. It does not explicitly say when to choose verify over sibling tools like get/patch/update.

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