Skip to main content
Glama

remove_delegate

Remove a delegate's access to your Gmail account by specifying their email address. This tool helps manage account permissions and security settings.

Instructions

Removes the specified delegate

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
delegateEmailYesEmail address of delegate to remove

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:975-986 (registration)
    Registration of the 'remove_delegate' MCP tool, including inline schema definition and handler function that uses the Gmail API to delete a delegate.
    server.tool("remove_delegate",
      "Removes the specified delegate",
      {
        delegateEmail: z.string().describe("Email address of delegate to remove")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.delegates.delete({ userId: 'me', delegateEmail: params.delegateEmail })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Handler function for the 'remove_delegate' tool. It invokes handleTool (shared helper) which performs OAuth validation and executes the Gmail API call to delete the delegate.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.delegates.delete({ userId: 'me', delegateEmail: params.delegateEmail })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for the 'remove_delegate' tool using Zod, requiring a delegateEmail string.
    {
      delegateEmail: z.string().describe("Email address of delegate to remove")
    },
  • Shared 'handleTool' helper function used by 'remove_delegate' (and all tools) to manage OAuth2 client creation, credential validation, Gmail client instantiation, API 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}` });
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated data, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and follows the principle of front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'removing a delegate' means in practical terms, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or system implications. Given the complexity of delegate management and the lack of structured behavioral information, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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 'delegateEmail' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema ('Email address of delegate to remove'). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide extra value like format examples or validation rules.

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 ('removes') and target ('the specified delegate'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_delegate' and 'list_delegates' by specifying removal rather than addition or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what system or context delegates belong to (e.g., email delegation system), 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., delegate must exist), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from related operations like 'delete_message' or 'trash_message'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone without contextual help.

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