Skip to main content
Glama

get_imap

Retrieve IMAP configuration settings for Gmail accounts to enable email client setup and server access.

Instructions

Gets IMAP settings

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:842-851 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_imap' tool, including inline handler function that fetches IMAP settings from Gmail API using the shared handleTool wrapper for authentication and error handling.
    server.tool("get_imap",
      "Gets IMAP settings",
      {},
      async () => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.getImap({ userId: 'me' })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The handler function for 'get_imap' tool, which calls Gmail API's users.settings.getImap to retrieve IMAP settings after authentication via handleTool.
    server.tool("get_imap",
      "Gets IMAP settings",
      {},
      async () => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.getImap({ userId: 'me' })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Input schema for 'get_imap' tool: no parameters required.
    {},
  • Shared helper function handleTool used by 'get_imap' for OAuth authentication, Gmail client creation, API call execution, and error handling including auth-specific errors.
    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}` });
      }
    }
  • Shared helper to format API 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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description implies a safe read operation but does not explicitly disclose side effects or permissions. Minimal transparency for a simple getter.

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?

Extremely concise with no wasted words, but could be slightly more descriptive without hurting brevity.

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?

Lacks information about return values, prerequisites, or what 'IMAP settings' entails. For a tool with no output schema, more context is needed.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 applies as no additional parameter info is needed.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Gets IMAP settings' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_imap and other get_* tools.

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, no prerequisites or context about IMAP setup.

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