Gmail MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a unique function: listing unread emails, deleting, archiving, managing labels, and viewing recent actions. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even delete_emails and archive_emails are clearly distinguished by their actions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_unread_emails, create_label, modify_labels). The naming is predictable and makes the action-resource relationship clear.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for basic Gmail inbox management and label operations. Each tool addresses a necessary operation without redundancy or unnecessary complexity.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers core inbox operations (list, delete, archive) and label management (list, create, modify), but lacks essential features like sending emails, reading full email content, searching beyond unread, or marking read/unread. Gaps exist for a full email workflow.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing what happens upon success or failure (e.g., duplicate label behavior, color validation, return value). This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action. It could be slightly expanded with usage hints without losing conciseness, but it is not overly verbose.
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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior, such as whether it returns the created label, any side effects, or error conditions. The current text is insufficient for a complete understanding.
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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It correctly implies that 'name' is the label name, but does not elaborate on color constraints or usage.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'Gmail label', making the tool's purpose straightforward. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'modify_labels' or 'list_labels', though the name itself provides some differentiation.
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. For example, it does not mention that 'modify_labels' could be used to update existing labels, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all Gmail labels', but does not confirm it is read-only, describe output format, or mention any rate limits or permissions. For a zero-annotation tool, this is insufficient.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description is adequate for a simple list operation. However, it does not provide any context about pagination, result format, or relationship to sibling tools like create_label. It is minimally complete but not enriching.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description is minimal and does not enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior or output.
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 tool lists all Gmail labels, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_unread_emails (lists emails) and list_recent_actions (actions, not labels). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create_label or modify_labels, which operate on labels but are different actions.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, before creating a label with create_label, an agent might need to list existing labels to avoid duplicates, but this is not mentioned. No exclusions or context cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only states the tool shows recent actions, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, action types scope, time range, sorting, or any side effects. Significant lack of 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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler words; every part serves a purpose.
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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It mentions action types, but lacks details on output format, sorting, time range, or pagination. Leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'limit' having a default and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 ('show') and the resource ('recent actions on emails'), with specific examples (delete, archive, label changes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_unread_emails (which shows emails, not actions) and delete/archive tools (which perform actions).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide any conditions. The context from sibling tools only implicitly implies viewing, but no clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Basic transparency is achieved but gaps remain.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned (e.g., email metadata). It fails to mention return format, fields, or behavior on empty results. For a list tool, this is a significant gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The mention of 'subject filtering' is redundant with the schema description.
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 verb 'list' and the resource 'unread emails in Gmail inbox' with an optional filter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_emails and archive_emails.
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?
The description implies usage for listing unread emails but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list_unread_emails vs list_recent_actions). No when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool removes emails from inbox but does not disclose whether the action is reversible, permission requirements, or potential side effects (e.g., label changes). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient 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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then concisely lists the accepted inputs. No extraneous words or repetitions; every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input relationship. It could be enhanced by mentioning the return value (e.g., success status or count), but the current level is adequate for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds value by noting positions come from an email list (linking to sibling tool list_unread_emails) and that positions and message_ids are alternatives. This contextual information enhances the schema's basic definitions.
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 (archive emails) and the resource (remove from inbox), and it distinguishes from siblings like delete_emails by specifying it only removes from inbox. It also explicitly mentions the two input methods, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage for moving emails out of inbox but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like delete_emails or modify_labels. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool moves emails to trash and marks them as read, which are key effects. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible (e.g., Gmail trash recovery) or any side effects like batch limits.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (delete), and the description covers the core action and parameters. However, it lacks details about return behavior, error handling, or batch limitations, which would be helpful given no output schema or annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that positions[] and message_ids[] can be used 'and/or' together, indicating they are alternative or complementary ways to specify emails.
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 'Move emails to trash and mark as read,' specifying the verb (move/trash, mark) and resource (emails). It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_emails (which archives rather than trashes) and list_unread_emails (which lists).
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?
The description implies the tool is used to delete emails but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_emails or modify_labels. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: batch operation, parameter flexibility, and the automatic removal of other Triage/* labels when adding one. However, it does not mention idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond labeling.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: first defines the operation, second specifies parameter usage and a critical behavioral rule.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core operation and a notable edge case. It does not explain return values or error handling, but for a label mutation tool, the behavioral details are adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that positions[] and message_ids[] are alternative identifiers, and add_labels/remove_labels refer to label names. It also introduces the Triage/* auto-removal logic, which is not in the schema.
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 tool's purpose: batch add/remove labels on emails. It specifies the action (modify labels), resource (emails), and unique behavior (Triage/* auto-removal), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_labels (read-only) and create_label (single label creation).
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?
The description implies usage for batch label operations but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, though the Triage/* rule provides a specific conditional guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gmail-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jnpacker/gmail-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jnpacker/gmail-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gmail-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jnpacker/gmail-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jnpacker/gmail-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/jnpacker/gmail-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server