Skip to main content
Glama

verify_send_as

Send verification emails to confirm send-as aliases in Gmail accounts. This tool initiates the verification process for email aliases to ensure proper authorization before use.

Instructions

Sends a verification email to the specified send-as alias

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sendAsEmailYesThe send-as alias to be verified

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:1220-1231 (registration)
    Registers the 'verify_send_as' MCP tool with input schema (sendAsEmail: string) and inline handler that uses the Gmail API to send a verification email to the specified send-as alias via gmail.users.settings.sendAs.verify, wrapped in handleTool for auth and error handling.
    server.tool("verify_send_as",
      "Sends a verification email to the specified send-as alias",
      {
        sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The send-as alias to be verified")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.verify({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The handler function for the 'verify_send_as' tool, which authenticates via handleTool, calls the Gmail API's verify method on sendAs, and formats the response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.verify({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameter for the 'verify_send_as' tool: sendAsEmail (string).
    {
      sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The send-as alias to be verified")
    },
  • Shared helper function used by all tools, including 'verify_send_as', to handle OAuth2 authentication, create Gmail client, execute the API call, and manage auth errors.
    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}` });
      }
    }
  • Helper to format tool responses as MCP content blocks with JSON stringified data.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action, omitting side effects (e.g., email sent to alias owner), required state (alias must be unverified), or outcome (e.g., user must follow link). Minimal transparency.

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?

One concise sentence with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Lacks critical context: no mention of return value, error states (e.g., alias already verified), or required user steps. Despite simplicity of the action, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand full implications.

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 single parameter sendAsEmail is described in the schema as 'The send-as alias to be verified.' The description does not add extra meaning or format details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Sends a verification email') and the target resource ('to the specified send-as alias'). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like create_send_as or get_send_as, which focus on other operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when verification is needed, but lacks context such as prerequisites (alias existence, unverified status) or comparative notes with other tools.

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