Skip to main content
Glama
nabheet

google-services-mcp

by nabheet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Send email

google_gmail_send

Send an email from the connected account with recipients, subject, body, CC/BCC, and attachments. Use it to deliver Gmail messages directly from an AI agent.

Instructions

Send an email from the connected account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipient(s).
toYesRecipient email(s).
bccNoBCC recipient(s).
bodyYesMessage body.
fromNoSend-as alias or address to set as the From header.
accountNoAccount nickname to use.
replyToNoAddress to set as the Reply-To header.
subjectYesSubject line.
bodyTypeNoBody format (default text).
attachmentsNoLocal files to attach to the email.
driveFileIdsNoDrive file IDs to attach by reference (downloaded under the Gmail size limit).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.60
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / cid
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Content-ID for inline parts so HTML can reference them as cid:<cid>.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / disposition
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How the part is presented (default attachment; inline embeds it in the body).",
+  "enum": [
+    "attachment",
+    "inline"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / driveFileIds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Drive file IDs to attach by reference (downloaded under the Gmail size limit).",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / from
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Send-as alias or address to set as the From header.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / replyTo
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Address to set as the Reply-To header.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.30
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Local files to attach to the email.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "filename": {
+        "description": "Attachment filename shown to recipients (defaults to the basename of path).",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "mimeType": {
+        "description": "MIME type override (defaults to a guess from the filename).",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "path": {
+        "description": "Local filesystem path of the file to attach.",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "path"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: it does not disclose that sending is immediate and irreversible, that it requires send scope/auth, that it consumes Gmail quota, or whether the message is stored in Sent. 'Send' implies mutation but the description never confirms the side-effect profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise given an 11-parameter mutation tool. The brevity leaves real gaps that a slightly longer description could close.

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?

For an irreversible outbound-message tool with 11 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essentials: irreversibility, auth/scope needs, and behavior when attachments exceed Gmail size limits. An agent could invoke it but would lack confidence about consequences.

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% and every parameter (to, cc, bcc, body, bodyType, attachments, driveFileIds, from, replyTo, account) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; the phrase 'connected account' is even mildly ambiguous against the explicit `account` nickname parameter.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Send an email' precisely names the action, and 'from the connected account' scopes the sender. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings like google_gmail_reply or google_gmail_drafts_send, which an agent must choose between.

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 versus google_gmail_reply (for replies to existing threads) or google_gmail_drafts_send (for pre-composed drafts). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about immediate vs deferred sending.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools