Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gmail-mcp-multi

gmail-mcp-multi

by dmorrill
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

search_emails

Search Gmail messages using query syntax to find specific emails, with support for multiple accounts.

Instructions

Search for emails using Gmail query syntax

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYesAccount alias or email to use
queryYesGmail search query (e.g., 'in:inbox is:unread')
maxResultsNoMaximum number of results (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states basic action. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (full emails vs. metadata), or any 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 description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It could be slightly more detailed but remains efficient and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description does not mention return format, pagination, or the effect of maxResults. Leaves many user questions unanswered despite minimal complexity.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, maintaining the baseline of 3.

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 description uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'emails', clearly stating the Gmail query syntax. It distinguishes from siblings like read_email (specific email) and send_email.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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