Skip to main content
Glama

untrash_thread

Restore email threads from the trash in Gmail by providing the thread ID to recover deleted conversations.

Instructions

Remove a thread from the trash

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:804-815 (registration)
    Registration of the 'untrash_thread' tool. Includes input schema (thread ID) and inline handler that uses the Gmail API to untrash the specified thread via gmail.users.threads.untrash. Relies on shared 'handleTool' and 'formatResponse' utilities.
    server.tool("untrash_thread",
      "Remove a thread from the trash",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to remove from trash")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.untrash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The handler function for 'untrash_thread' tool. It invokes the shared 'handleTool' which handles OAuth, validates credentials, creates Gmail client, calls the Gmail API's threads.untrash method with the provided thread ID, and formats the response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.untrash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
  • Input schema for 'untrash_thread' tool using Zod: requires a single 'id' parameter which is the thread ID.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to remove from trash")
    },
  • Shared 'handleTool' helper used by 'untrash_thread' and other tools. Manages OAuth2 client creation, credential validation, Gmail client instantiation, executes the provided API call, and handles errors.
    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}`
      }
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the action simply but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The action is straightforward, so minimal disclosure is acceptable.

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?

A single sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part is essential and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It could mention being the inverse of 'trash_thread' but is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'id' parameter completely. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Remove' and the resource 'a thread from the trash', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'untrash_message' by specifying thread.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trash_thread' or 'delete_thread', though the context implies it reverses trash. No explicit when-not or alternatives provided.

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