Skip to main content
Glama

get_auto_forwarding

Retrieve auto-forwarding configuration from Gmail to view or manage email forwarding rules for your account.

Instructions

Gets auto-forwarding settings

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'get_auto_forwarding' tool. It calls the Gmail API to retrieve auto-forwarding settings using the shared handleTool wrapper, which manages authentication and error handling.
    server.tool("get_auto_forwarding",
      "Gets auto-forwarding settings",
      {},
      async () => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.getAutoForwarding({ userId: 'me' })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • src/index.ts:831-840 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_auto_forwarding' tool on the MCP server using server.tool().
    server.tool("get_auto_forwarding",
      "Gets auto-forwarding settings",
      {},
      async () => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.getAutoForwarding({ userId: 'me' })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Input schema for 'get_auto_forwarding' tool: no parameters required.
    {},
  • Shared helper function handleTool used by get_auto_forwarding and many other tools for authentication, client creation, and error handling.
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        // Check for specific authentication errors
        if (
          error.message?.includes("invalid_grant") ||
          error.message?.includes("refresh_token") ||
          error.message?.includes("invalid_client") ||
          error.message?.includes("unauthorized_client") ||
          error.code === 401 ||
          error.code === 403
        ) {
          return formatResponse({
            error: `Authentication failed: ${error.message}. Please re-authenticate by running: npx @shinzolabs/gmail-mcp auth`,
          });
        }
    
        return formatResponse({ error: `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}` });
      }
    }
  • Helper function to format tool responses as MCP content.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not confirm that the operation is read-only, mention any permissions, or describe side effects, leaving the agent with minimal insight.

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?

A single short sentence conveys the purpose without any extra words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description is minimal. While it is functional, it could be improved by hinting at the structure or common fields of the auto-forwarding settings, but it meets the minimum for a simple getter.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no further meaning, but as per calibration guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4.

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 'Gets auto-forwarding settings' clearly states the action (gets) and the resource (auto-forwarding settings), distinguishing it from siblings like update_auto_forwarding.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_forwarding_address or update_auto_forwarding. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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