Skip to main content
Glama
nk900600

Gmail MCP Server

by nk900600
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Hybrid

untrash_message

Restore deleted Gmail messages from trash by providing the message ID. This tool recovers accidentally deleted emails to your inbox.

Instructions

Remove a message from the trash

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the message to remove from trash

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:675-686 (registration)
    Registration of the 'untrash_message' MCP tool, including input schema (message ID), description, and handler function that uses the Gmail API to untrash the specified message and formats the response.
    server.tool("untrash_message",
  "Remove a message from the trash",
  {
    id: z.string().describe("The ID of the message to remove from trash")
  },
  async (params) => {
    return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
      const { data } = await gmail.users.messages.untrash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
      return formatResponse(data)
    })
  }
)
  • src/index.ts:680-685 (handler)
    The handler function for 'untrash_message' tool, which invokes the Gmail API's users.messages.untrash method with the provided message ID.
    async (params) => {
  return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
    const { data } = await gmail.users.messages.untrash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
    return formatResponse(data)
  })
}
  • src/index.ts:677-679 (schema)
    Input schema for 'untrash_message' tool using Zod, requiring a string 'id' for the message ID.
    {
  id: z.string().describe("The ID of the message to remove from trash")
},

Tool Definition Quality

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('remove from trash') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this restores the message to its original location (e.g., inbox), what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what happens if the message isn't in the trash. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the operation (where the message goes, what the response contains), doesn't mention error conditions or permissions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of a state-changing operation in a messaging system, more contextual information would be helpful.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema as 'The ID of the message to remove from trash'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal parameter documentation.

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 ('remove') and resource ('a message from the trash'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_message' or 'trash_message' by specifying the trash context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'untrash_thread', which performs a similar operation on threads instead of messages.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_message' (permanent deletion) or 'trash_message' (moving to trash). It doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a message to already be in the trash or any error conditions. The only implied usage is when you want to restore a trashed message.

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/nk900600/gmail-mcp'

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