Skip to main content
Glama

update_language

Change the display language for your Gmail interface by specifying a valid language tag to customize your email management experience.

Instructions

Updates language settings

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
displayLanguageYesThe language to display Gmail in, formatted as an RFC 3066 Language Tag

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'update_language' tool. It invokes the Gmail API's users.settings.updateLanguage method via the shared handleTool wrapper to update the display language.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.updateLanguage({ userId: 'me', requestBody: params })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema using Zod for validating the 'displayLanguage' parameter of the update_language tool.
    {
      displayLanguage: z.string().describe("The language to display Gmail in, formatted as an RFC 3066 Language Tag")
    },
  • src/index.ts:916-927 (registration)
    Registration of the 'update_language' tool on the MCP server, including name, description, schema, and handler.
    server.tool("update_language",
      "Updates language settings",
      {
        displayLanguage: z.string().describe("The language to display Gmail in, formatted as an RFC 3066 Language Tag")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.updateLanguage({ userId: 'me', requestBody: params })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared helper function used by all Gmail tools, including update_language, to handle OAuth2 authentication, client creation, error handling, and API call execution.
    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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'updates' implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Updates language settings', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively beyond basic purpose.

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 'displayLanguage' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Updates language settings' restates the tool name 'update_language' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'updates' and resource 'language settings' but lacks detail on what aspect of language settings (e.g., display language, interface language) or scope (e.g., user, account), distinguishing it poorly from siblings like 'get_language'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., user settings vs. system-wide), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_language' for retrieval. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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