Skip to main content
Glama

remove_delegate

Remove a delegate's access to manage your Gmail account by specifying their email address.

Instructions

Removes the specified delegate

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
delegateEmailYesEmail address of delegate to remove

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for remove_delegate tool: calls Gmail API to delete the specified delegate email address using handleTool wrapper for authentication.
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.delegates.delete({ userId: 'me', delegateEmail: params.delegateEmail })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Input schema for remove_delegate tool: requires delegateEmail string.
    {
      delegateEmail: z.string().describe("Email address of delegate to remove")
    },
  • src/index.ts:961-972 (registration)
    Registration of the remove_delegate tool on the MCP server, including description, schema, and handler.
    server.tool("remove_delegate",
      "Removes the specified delegate",
      {
        delegateEmail: z.string().describe("Email address of delegate to remove")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.delegates.delete({ userId: 'me', delegateEmail: params.delegateEmail })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Helper function handleTool used by remove_delegate to handle OAuth2 authentication and Gmail client creation before executing the API call.
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        return `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}`
      }
    }
  • Helper function formatResponse used to format the API response for the MCP tool output.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action without disclosing effects like whether removal is immediate, reversible, or requires permissions. Missing critical traits for a destructive tool.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but underspecified. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it insufficient for effective use.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain return values, side effects, or confirmation of removal. It is incomplete for a deletion operation.

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 a clear parameter description for 'delegateEmail'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'delegate', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Removes the specified delegate' clearly states the action and object, but lacks differentiation from sibling delegate tools like 'add_delegate' or 'list_delegates'. The verb 'removes' makes 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 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 vs alternatives like 'add_delegate' or 'get_delegate'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context for removal.

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