Skip to main content
Glama

list_smime_info

Retrieve S/MIME encryption configurations for a specific Gmail sender alias to manage email security settings.

Instructions

Lists S/MIME configs for the specified send-as alias

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sendAsEmailYesThe email address that appears in the 'From:' header

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:1276-1287 (registration)
    Registration of the 'list_smime_info' tool, including description, input schema, and inline handler function that lists S/MIME configurations for a given send-as email using the Gmail API.
    server.tool("list_smime_info",
      "Lists S/MIME configs for the specified send-as alias",
      {
        sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The email address that appears in the 'From:' header")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.list({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Handler function for 'list_smime_info' tool. Validates auth via handleTool, calls Gmail API to list S/MIME info for the specified sendAsEmail, and formats the response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.list({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for 'list_smime_info' tool defining the required 'sendAsEmail' parameter.
    {
      sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The email address that appears in the 'From:' header")
    },
  • Shared 'handleTool' helper used by 'list_smime_info' (and other tools) for OAuth2 authentication validation, Gmail client creation, API call execution, and error handling with specific auth error responses.
    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 'formatResponse' helper used 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists configs but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination), potential errors, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'S/MIME configs' entail, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves too much unspecified for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sendAsEmail' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not additive documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Lists') and resource ('S/MIME configs') with specific scope ('for the specified send-as alias'), providing a complete purpose statement. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_smime_info' or 'insert_smime_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'get_smime_info' (which might retrieve a single config) or 'insert_smime_info' (which creates configs). It also lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information.

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