Skip to main content
Glama

get_delegate

Retrieve a specific delegate's information from Gmail by providing their email address to manage account access permissions.

Instructions

Gets the specified delegate

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
delegateEmailYesThe email address of the delegate to retrieve

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:988-999 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_delegate' tool, including input schema and handler function that retrieves the specified delegate using the Gmail API via handleTool.
    server.tool("get_delegate",
      "Gets the specified delegate",
      {
        delegateEmail: z.string().describe("The email address of the delegate to retrieve")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.delegates.get({ userId: 'me', delegateEmail: params.delegateEmail })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The handler function for 'get_delegate' tool. It uses the shared handleTool to authenticate, create Gmail client, call users.settings.delegates.get API, and format the response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.delegates.get({ userId: 'me', delegateEmail: params.delegateEmail })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for 'get_delegate' tool using Zod: requires delegateEmail string.
    {
      delegateEmail: z.string().describe("The email address of the delegate to retrieve")
    },
  • Shared helper function handleTool used by all tools including get_delegate for OAuth2 authentication, Gmail client creation, API call execution, 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 blocks with JSON stringified data.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' implies a read operation, but it doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the delegate doesn't exist), rate limits, or what data is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence ('Gets the specified delegate') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter set, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'gets' returns (e.g., delegate details or status), behavioral traits, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation beyond basic purpose.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'delegateEmail' clearly documented as 'The email address of the delegate to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Gets the specified delegate' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('delegate'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'gets' entails (e.g., retrieves details vs. fetches metadata) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_delegates' or 'remove_delegate', which would require more specificity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a delegate email), contrast with 'list_delegates' for multiple delegates, or specify scenarios where this is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/faithk7/gmail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server