Skip to main content
Glama

list_delegates

View and manage delegated access permissions for a Gmail account to control who can send emails or manage messages on your behalf.

Instructions

Lists the delegates for the specified account

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation for the 'list_delegates' tool. Registers and defines the tool which lists Gmail delegates using the Gmail API via handleTool.
    server.tool("list_delegates",
      "Lists the delegates for the specified account",
      {},
      async () => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.delegates.list({ userId: 'me' })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Input schema for list_delegates tool (no parameters required).
    {},
  • src/index.ts:1001-1010 (registration)
    Registration of the 'list_delegates' MCP tool using server.tool().
    server.tool("list_delegates",
      "Lists the delegates for the specified account",
      {},
      async () => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.delegates.list({ userId: 'me' })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared helper function handleTool that manages OAuth2 authentication, client creation, and executes the Gmail API call for all tools including list_delegates.
    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 API responses for MCP tools.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation (list), which is transparent, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, potential side effects, or return format.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information.

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 zero parameters, the description is minimal. It does not mention what the list contains, pagination, or ordering. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but could provide more detail about the output.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document. With 100% schema coverage and zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 clearly states it lists delegates for the specified account, using a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('delegates'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_delegate (add), get_delegate (single), and remove_delegate (delete).

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_delegate. It implies a listing operation, but no exclusions or context for when to choose listing over retrieving a single delegate are given.

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