Skip to main content
Glama

gws-mcp

A small, self-contained MCP server for Google Tasks, Calendar, and Drive — read-write, with one hard rule: every write requires explicit human approval before it executes.

Status: alpha (v0.1.0). The full designed surface — 25 tools across Tasks, Calendar, and Drive — is implemented and tested (46 tests, both approval modes). Not yet battle-hardened against real-world API quirks.

Why another Google MCP?

Google now ships official remote MCP servers (Developer Preview) for Gmail, Drive, Calendar, Chat and People — hosted HTTP endpoints you wire into a client as connectors. They do not cover Google Tasks, they execute writes as soon as the model calls the tool (no built-in approval step), and they are remote by design. Community alternatives remain broad (10+ services) and mostly unmaintained.

This server is deliberately narrow and local — it pairs well with the official connectors, filling the Tasks gap and covering Calendar/Drive when you want approval-gated writes or a fully local path:

  • Three services only — Tasks, Calendar, Drive. Smaller code, smaller audit surface.

  • Local stdio server — spawned by your MCP client (Claude Code, Gemini CLI, …). Nothing hosted, nothing listening on a network. The server only ever sees tool calls, never your prompts.

  • BYO OAuth — you create your own Google Cloud OAuth client and grant scopes to yourself. No shared credentials anywhere.

  • Tokens in the OS keyring (Secret Service / KDE Wallet / macOS Keychain) — never plaintext on disk.

Related MCP server: Google Docs + Gmail MCP Server

The write-approval invariant

Read tools (list_*, get_*, search_*, read_*) run freely. Mutating tools (create_*, update_*, complete_*, move_*, trash_*, delete_*) cannot execute without a human saying yes, enforced in layers:

  1. MCP elicitation (primary): before executing, the server sends a human-readable preview through the client UI — the confirmation goes directly to the human, so the model cannot approve its own writes.

  2. Two-step fallback (clients without elicitation): the first call returns a preview + one-time confirm token and mutates nothing; only a second call with the token executes. All executed writes are logged to stderr.

  3. Tool annotations (readOnlyHint / destructiveHint) + the strict naming convention, so client permission systems can auto-allow reads and always-prompt writes.

Destructive operations are softened where the API allows it: Drive "delete" is trash, never a hard delete.

Planned tool surface (~22 tools)

Service

Read

Write (approval-gated)

Tasks

list_task_lists list_tasks get_task

create_task update_task complete_task move_task delete_task

Calendar

list_calendars list_events search_events get_event

create_event update_event respond_to_event delete_event

Drive

search_files get_file_metadata read_file_content

create_file update_file_content move_file trash_file

OAuth scopes: tasks, calendar.events (events only — no ACL/settings access), drive.

Stack

Python 3.12+ · uv · official mcp SDK (FastMCP, stdio) · google-api-python-client + google-auth-oauthlib · keyring · pytest + ruff.

Quick start

  1. Bring your own OAuth client (one-time, ~30 min): in the Google Cloud console create a project, enable the Tasks, Calendar, and Drive APIs, create an OAuth 2.0 Desktop app client, and download its JSON to ~/.config/gws-mcp/credentials.json (chmod 600). No credentials ever ship with, or are stored by, this project — the OAuth grant lives in your OS keyring.

  2. Authenticate (interactive, opens a browser):

    git clone https://github.com/purplespacecat/gws-mcp && cd gws-mcp
    uv sync
    uv run gws-mcp auth          # then: uv run gws-mcp auth --status
  3. Wire it into your MCP client (stdio):

    # Claude Code
    claude mcp add google-workspace -- uv --directory /path/to/gws-mcp run gws-mcp
    # Gemini CLI
    gemini mcp add google-workspace uv -- --directory /path/to/gws-mcp run gws-mcp

    In clients that support MCP elicitation, write approvals appear as UI prompts; in clients that don't, writes return a preview + one-time confirm token and nothing mutates until confirm_write is called.

Serving a subset of services

Set GWS_MCP_SERVICES (comma-separated: tasks, calendar, drive) to expose only some services — e.g. only Tasks, if you use Google's official remote MCP servers for Calendar and Drive:

claude mcp add google-tasks --env GWS_MCP_SERVICES=tasks -- \
  uv --directory /path/to/gws-mcp run gws-mcp

This narrows both the tools the server exposes and the scopes gws-mcp auth requests — a Tasks-only install never asks for the restricted drive scope. Run the auth flow with the same value set (GWS_MCP_SERVICES=tasks uv run gws-mcp auth); widening services later means re-running it to consent to the added scopes.

Contributing

Issues and PRs are welcome — see CONTRIBUTING.md. All contributions are reviewed before merge; PRs that touch auth, scopes, or the write-approval layer get extra scrutiny.

License

MIT

Available Tools

1 tool
auth_statusA
Read-only

Report Google authentication status (never contains secret material).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds the important behavioral note 'never contains secret material', which is beyond what annotations provide. This enriches transparency about the tool's safety and content. No contradictions.

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 consists of a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Report Google authentication status') and adds a critical safety qualifier. Every word serves a purpose; zero waste.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by mentioning the expected output format (e.g., a status string or object), but the current content still provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's function.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter information. With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description adds sufficient context about the tool's purpose.

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 uses the specific verb 'report' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Google authentication status'. It provides precise scope with the clarification 'never contains secret material'. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not required, making this fully clear.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool has no siblings and is simple, so the lack of explicit usage context is acceptable but not ideal. A score of 3 reflects minimal viability.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev0.1.0
    • First observedauth_status

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of ambiguity or confusion between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming is trivially consistent and follows a clear pattern (verb_noun: auth_status).

Tool Count2/5

A single tool for checking authentication status is extremely limited for a server named 'gws-mcp' which implies Google Workspace functionality. While it may serve a narrow purpose, the count feels too small for a meaningful integration.

Completeness1/5

The server only offers an auth status check, which is severely incomplete for any realistic Google Workspace interaction. There are no tools for managing resources, performing actions, or accessing data, so agents would hit dead ends immediately.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server that seamlessly interacts with your Google Calendar, Gmail, Drive and so on.
    30
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server for Google Calendar and Google Tasks, exposed over HTTP (JSON-RPC) so LLM clients can manage events and tasks via a service account.
    85 npm
    MIT