Skip to main content
Glama

patch_send_as

Update a Gmail send-as alias to modify display name, reply-to address, signature, or primary status for customized email sending.

Instructions

Patches the specified send-as alias

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sendAsEmailYesThe send-as alias to be updated
displayNameNoA name that appears in the 'From:' header
replyToAddressNoAn optional email address that is included in a 'Reply-To:' header
signatureNoAn optional HTML signature
isPrimaryNoWhether this address is the primary address
treatAsAliasNoWhether Gmail should treat this address as an alias

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:1182-1199 (registration)
    Registration of the 'patch_send_as' tool using server.tool(), including schema and inline handler.
    server.tool("patch_send_as",
      "Patches the specified send-as alias",
      {
        sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The send-as alias to be updated"),
        displayName: z.string().optional().describe("A name that appears in the 'From:' header"),
        replyToAddress: z.string().optional().describe("An optional email address that is included in a 'Reply-To:' header"),
        signature: z.string().optional().describe("An optional HTML signature"),
        isPrimary: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether this address is the primary address"),
        treatAsAlias: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether Gmail should treat this address as an alias")
      },
      async (params) => {
        const { sendAsEmail, ...patchData } = params
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.patch({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail, requestBody: patchData })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Handler function for patch_send_as tool: extracts sendAsEmail, prepares patchData, calls Gmail API patch via handleTool helper.
    async (params) => {
      const { sendAsEmail, ...patchData } = params
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.patch({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail, requestBody: patchData })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for patch_send_as tool using Zod validation.
    {
      sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The send-as alias to be updated"),
      displayName: z.string().optional().describe("A name that appears in the 'From:' header"),
      replyToAddress: z.string().optional().describe("An optional email address that is included in a 'Reply-To:' header"),
      signature: z.string().optional().describe("An optional HTML signature"),
      isPrimary: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether this address is the primary address"),
      treatAsAlias: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether Gmail should treat this address as an alias")
    },
  • Shared handleTool helper used by patch_send_as and other tools for OAuth handling, credential validation, Gmail 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}` });
      }
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'patches', which implies a partial update, but does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, failure scenarios, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. However, given the number of parameters and sibling tools, slightly more context (e.g., 'partial update') would benefit without sacrificing 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?

The description does not explain the partial update behavior, mention the output (no output schema), or provide any context about which fields are updatable. For a tool with six parameters and many siblings, this is under-specified.

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, documenting all six parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'patches' and the resource 'send-as alias', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'update_send_as', which might imply a full update. A distinction between partial (patch) and full update would improve clarity.

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, such as 'update_send_as' or 'create_send_as'. No context or exclusions are given, leaving the agent without decision support.

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