Skip to main content
Glama

update_pop

Configure POP email retrieval settings to control which messages are accessible and what happens to them after fetching.

Instructions

Updates POP settings

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accessWindowYesThe range of messages which are accessible via POP
dispositionYesThe action that will be executed on a message after it has been fetched via POP

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:929-941 (registration)
    Registration of the 'update_pop' MCP tool. Defines the input schema using Zod and the handler function which uses handleTool to call the Gmail API method gmail.users.settings.updatePop to update POP settings.
    server.tool("update_pop",
      "Updates POP settings",
      {
        accessWindow: z.enum(['disabled', 'allMail', 'fromNowOn']).describe("The range of messages which are accessible via POP"),
        disposition: z.enum(['archive', 'trash', 'leaveInInbox']).describe("The action that will be executed on a message after it has been fetched via POP")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.updatePop({ userId: 'me', requestBody: params })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The handler function for the 'update_pop' tool. It invokes the shared handleTool utility, which authenticates and executes the Gmail API call to update POP settings, then formats the response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.updatePop({ userId: 'me', requestBody: params })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the 'update_pop' tool: accessWindow (enum: disabled, allMail, fromNowOn) and disposition (enum: archive, trash, leaveInInbox).
    {
      accessWindow: z.enum(['disabled', 'allMail', 'fromNowOn']).describe("The range of messages which are accessible via POP"),
      disposition: z.enum(['archive', 'trash', 'leaveInInbox']).describe("The action that will be executed on a message after it has been fetched via POP")
    },
  • Shared helper function handleTool used by all tools including update_pop. Handles OAuth2 authentication, client creation, API call execution, error handling (especially auth errors), and response formatting.
    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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Updates' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 - just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what permissions are required, or provide any error handling context. The agent would need to make assumptions about the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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 both parameters having clear enum descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Updates POP settings' clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('POP settings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific aspects of POP settings are updated, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_imap' or 'update_auto_forwarding' that also update settings.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'get_pop' (which presumably retrieves POP settings). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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