grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail.users.settings.updateImap

Updates a Gmail user's IMAP settings, including enabling IMAP and configuring auto-expunge, expunge behavior, and folder size limits.

Instructions

Updates IMAP settings. For more information, see Configure POP and IMAP settings with the Gmail API [HTTP PUT] — updates the resource; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON ImapSettings object accepting autoExpunge, enabled, expungeBehavior, maxFolderSize; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: getAutoForwarding, getImap, getLanguage, getPop, getVacation, updateAutoForwarding, updateLanguage, updatePop, updateVacation.

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 ImapSettings object.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type ImapSettings: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`enabled`	No
`autoExpunge`	No
`maxFolderSize`	No
`expungeBehavior`	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 ImapSettings object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type ImapSettings: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "autoExpunge": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "enabled": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "expungeBehavior": {
+      "enum": [
+        "expungeBehaviorUnspecified",
+        "archive",
+        "trash",
+        "deleteForever"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxFolderSize": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

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": {
+    "autoExpunge": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "enabled": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "expungeBehavior": {
+      "enum": [
+        "expungeBehaviorUnspecified",
+        "archive",
+        "trash",
+        "deleteForever"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxFolderSize": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the HTTP PUT semantics, the refusal under --readonly safety profiles, and that the API response resource is returned as JSON. It leaves out whether changes require admin/owner permissions or are immediately applied.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by docs link, safety note, return format, body fields and siblings. Dense and slightly run-on with the long sibling list, but every clause carries information.

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 single-resource mutation tool with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description supplies the critical extras: it's a PUT, it can be refused by readonly profiles, and the body shape. Missing only permission/scope expectations, which is a minor gap.

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 documents userId, params, body_file, request_body and each ImapSettings field. The description restates the body fields and the params-vs-body_file routing in slightly different words, adding little beyond the schema; 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+resource ('Updates IMAP settings') and names the sibling tools over the same resource (getImap, updatePop, getPop, etc.), so an agent can distinguish it immediately. The linked guide and HTTP PUT reinforce what is being changed.

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?

The description makes clear this is the write counterpart to getImap/getPop/updatePop and flags the readonly-profile refusal, which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not explicitly say 'use updatePop instead when changing POP settings', but the sibling list makes the routing near-obvious.

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

Deploy Server