Skip to main content
Glama
iTvX

Google Workspace MCP — Gmail edition

by iTvX

bulk_operations

Run multiple Gmail or Workspace operations in one call: queue different actions in sequence with chained results, or batch one action across many resources to reduce API round trips.

Instructions

Do many things in one call, two ways. mode:'queue' (default) runs different operations in sequence, chaining results with $N.field — works for every tool. mode:'batch' does ONE operation across many resources in a single Google request — far fewer round trips, but only where Google publishes a batch method.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoqueue (default): N operations, N API calls, in order, with $N.field references between them. batch: ONE operation across many resources in a single API call — no $N references, because there is no 'between'.
toolNobatch only — the tool to call, e.g. 'manage_contacts'.
emailNobatch only — the account to act as.
itemsNobatch only — one entry per resource. A bare id string is enough when that is all that differs, e.g. ['people/c1', 'people/c2']; use objects when items carry more, e.g. [{name: 'Ada Lovelace', contactEmail: 'ada@example.com'}]. Anything shared by the WHOLE batch — labels to add, a field mask — goes at the top level of this call, not in here.
detailNosummary: one-line status per operation (default) | full: include complete output from each operation
operationNobatch only — the operation to apply to every item, e.g. 'delete'. Ask for one that cannot batch and the error names the ones that can.
operationsNoOperations to execute sequentially

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.8.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose non-obvious traits: batch issues a single upstream Google request, queue chains results via $N.field and has no equivalent 'between' step in batch, and batch availability is conditional on Google publishing a batch method. It omits failure/partial-failure semantics and ordering guarantees for batch, so it is helpful but not complete.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact for an agent (the two modes and their tradeoff) is front-loaded. The contrast is stated compactly rather than as a bulleted manual.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the mechanics are adequately covered, but two consequential gaps remain: no differentiation from the queue_operations sibling, and no explanation of return shape even though detail:summary/full governs output verbosity (the description never mentions it). Adequate, not complete.

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%, so every parameter (mode, tool, email, items, detail, operation, operations) is already documented in the schema, including the very same mode semantics the description restates. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what structured fields provide, which is the textbook baseline 3.

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?

States a specific capability (execute many operations in one call) and names the two distinct execution strategies, with the engine difference spelled out ('runs different operations in sequence' vs 'ONE operation across many resources in a single Google request'). It never mentions the sibling queue_operations, which covers apparently overlapping ground, so the agent gets no help distinguishing these two; that omission keeps it out of 5 territory.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives real selection criteria between the two modes: queue 'works for every tool', batch is 'only where Google publishes a batch method' but yields 'far fewer round trips'. It stops short of saying when to reach for bulk_operations at all versus calling individual tools (or queue_operations) directly, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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