gmail-mcp-multi

authenticate

Add or re-authenticate a Gmail account by initiating a browser-based OAuth flow, using an alias to manage multiple accounts.

Instructions

Add or re-authenticate a Gmail account. Opens browser for OAuth flow.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "alias": "<alias>"
    },
    "name": "authenticate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alias`	Yes	Friendly name for this account (e.g., 'work', 'personal')
`email`	No	Email address for this account (used as login hint)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'Opens browser for OAuth flow,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details such as whether the call blocks, returns anything, or stores credentials. Adds value but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, no redundant wording, front-loaded with purpose. Highly concise and efficient.

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?

No output schema and no return value description. The description does not explain what happens after authentication (e.g., token stored) or that the browser interaction may be blocking. Sufficient for basic understanding but leaves gaps for agent usage.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining how 'email' is used as a login hint). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool adds or re-authenticates a Gmail account, distinguishing it from siblings focused on email operations (list, read, send, etc.). Verb+resource is specific.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information. While it is the only authentication tool among siblings, the description does not guide usage (e.g., 'Use before other email tools if account not yet authenticated'). Adequate but minimal.

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

Deploy Server