Skip to main content
Glama
knowledgeislands

mcp-gmail

by knowledgeislands
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: server info, authentication initiation, and auth status checking. No overlap in functionality exists.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Tool names lack a consistent pattern: 'about' is a preposition, 'authenticate' is a verb, and 'check-auth-status' uses hyphens. Mixing conventions reduces predictability.

    Tool Count1/5

    With only 3 tools, all related to authentication and server info, the server is far too narrow for a Gmail integration. No email operations are offered.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface misses core Gmail functionality like reading, sending, or managing emails and labels. The server is severely incomplete for its domain.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

  • This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    The description claims a write operation ('Start the OAuth flow') while annotations state readOnlyHint=true, creating a contradiction. No details on side effects, user interaction, or token handling are provided.

    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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is concise but could be slightly more informative without adding length.

    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 low complexity (one optional param, no output schema), the description still lacks critical behavioral details such as whether it opens a browser or returns a URL, and contradicts annotations, making it incomplete.

    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 'force' having a clear description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema but is adequate.

    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 'Start the OAuth flow' and the resource 'authorize this server against your Gmail account', distinguishing it from siblings like 'about' and 'check-auth-status' which are informational or status-checking tools.

    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 use for initiating authentication but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites like needing a Gmail account.

    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?

    Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'with the Gmail API' context but lacks details on response behavior (e.g., what happens if not authenticated).

    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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

    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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. It could mention the expected return value (e.g., status or boolean), but is largely complete.

    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?

    The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies as no additional context is necessary.

    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 'check' and the resource 'authentication status' with the Gmail API. It distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' which performs authentication, not status checking.

    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 like 'authenticate'. Users might benefit from knowing that this is a preliminary step before making API calls, but it's not mentioned.

    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?

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint true, so the description adds little new. It correctly states 'returns information' but doesn't specify what information, making it minimally useful beyond annotations.

    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 with no filler; every word 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?

    Adequate for a simple info tool with no parameters and no output schema, but could be more specific about what 'information' is returned (e.g., server name, version).

    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?

    No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no param info, but none is needed.

    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 returns information about the MCP Gmail server, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (authenticate, check-auth-status) which handle authentication.

    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?

    While no explicit when/when-not is given, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for getting server info, not authentication. Implied usage is sufficient.

    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

mcp-gmail MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-gmail MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/knowledgeislands/mcp-gmail'

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