Skip to main content
Glama
marianasmall

Mariana Google MCP

by marianasmall

gmail_search

Search Gmail messages using query syntax like 'from:name subject:topic'. Filter emails by sender, subject, or date to find specific messages across Google accounts.

Instructions

Search Gmail messages. Uses Gmail search syntax (e.g. 'from:name subject:topic').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesGmail search query
accountNoAccount name (default: primary)
max_resultsNoMax results (default 10)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses query syntax behavior (the example). It fails to state whether this is read-only, what the return format is (message IDs vs snippets), pagination behavior beyond max_results, or any rate 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose, second provides critical syntax guidance with example. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool complexity.

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 the 3-parameter input schema, but since no output schema exists, the description should ideally mention what gets returned (e.g., message IDs, snippets) to complete the contract. Missing this creates ambiguity given the sibling gmail_read tool.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value by providing the concrete example 'from:name subject:topic', which clarifies the expected syntax for the 'query' parameter beyond the generic 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?

Description clearly states the specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Gmail messages', immediately distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_read (retrieve specific), gmail_draft (create), and gmail_move_to_delete (delete).

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?

Mentions 'Uses Gmail search syntax' which implies usage for filtering scenarios, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus gmail_read or whether search results need to be passed to other tools. No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite guidance provided.

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/marianasmall/mariana-google-mcp'

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