Skip to main content
Glama

verify_send_as

Sends a verification email to confirm a Gmail send-as alias, ensuring you can send emails from that address.

Instructions

Sends a verification email to the specified send-as alias

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sendAsEmailYesThe send-as alias to be verified

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:1206-1217 (registration)
    Registration of the 'verify_send_as' tool, including inline schema and handler. The handler uses 'handleTool' to validate credentials and call Gmail API's users.settings.sendAs.verify to send a verification email to the specified send-as alias.
    server.tool("verify_send_as",
      "Sends a verification email to the specified send-as alias",
      {
        sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The send-as alias to be verified")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.verify({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Handler function for 'verify_send_as' tool. It invokes the shared 'handleTool' utility which handles OAuth validation and executes the Gmail API call to verify the send-as alias by sending an email.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.verify({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for 'verify_send_as' tool using Zod: requires 'sendAsEmail' as a string.
    "Sends a verification email to the specified send-as alias",
    {
      sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The send-as alias to be verified")
  • Shared 'handleTool' helper used by all Gmail tools, including 'verify_send_as'. It creates/validates OAuth2 client, initializes Gmail client, executes the provided API callback, 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}`
      }
    }
  • 'formatResponse' helper used by 'verify_send_as' handler to format the API response as MCP content.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the action (sending a verification email), it doesn't explain what 'verification' entails, whether this triggers user notifications, if it's idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after verification (e.g., does it enable sending rights?), potential errors, or side effects. Given the complexity of email verification workflows and the lack of structured data, more contextual information would be necessary for reliable agent usage.

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 'sendAsEmail' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or relationship to other tools). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 action ('Sends a verification email') and the target resource ('specified send-as alias'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_send_as' or 'update_send_as', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the alias must exist first), timing considerations, or what happens after verification. With many sibling tools for managing send-as aliases, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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