Skip to main content
Glama
rajool

google-workspace-mcp

by rajool
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gmail_send

Send an email instantly from any connected Google account, with optional attachments, CC/BCC, and reply-to-thread support. Handles plain-text bodies and generates Gmail-style HTML formatting automatically.

Instructions

Send an email immediately from the given account.

Replies: pass thread_id and nothing else. The server reads the thread and
quotes its history below your text exactly as Gmail's web Reply does, and
derives the In-Reply-To / References headers itself. So write `body` as
ONLY the new message — never paste earlier messages into it by hand, or
the recipient gets the history twice. (`in_reply_to_message_id` overrides
the derived header when you already hold the RFC822 Message-Id;
`quote_history=false` sends into the thread with no quote.)

Body format: write `body` as plain text — blank-line paragraphs,
"- " bullets, "1." / "1)" numbered lines (ASCII or Persian digits).
It goes out as multipart/alternative with a Gmail-composer-style HTML
part, so lists arrive as Gmail's real bullets/numbering and the draft
can be opened and sent from the Gmail web UI safely. Never hard-wrap
lines yourself. Set html=true only for a body that is already HTML.

`attachments` are paths on the machine running this server. Each is
attached under its own file name, with the MIME type guessed from that
name and `application/octet-stream` as the fallback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNo
toYes
bccNo
bodyYes
htmlNo
accountYes
subjectYes
thread_idNo
attachmentsNo
quote_historyNo
in_reply_to_message_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Attachments"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / quote_history
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "title": "Quote History",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden and handles it well: it discloses that the server reads and quotes thread history, derives In-Reply-To/References headers, converts plain text to Gmail-style HTML, and treats attachments as local server paths with MIME guessing. These are critical non-obvious behaviors that structured data cannot convey.

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?

Three compact labeled sections deliver all the non-obvious usage rules without digression. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable information an agent needs before calling.

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?

The description is thorough for send-specific pitfalls: quote duplication, line wrapping, HTML conversion, and attachment sources. However, with no output schema, it is silent about what the call returns (e.g., message ID or success confirmation), which is a minor gap for follow-up use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates for the hardest parameters: body formatting rules, html behavior, thread_id/reply interplay, quote_history, in_reply_to_message_id override, and attachment path semantics. Naturally evident parameters like to, cc, bcc, subject, and account receive no added detail, but their names are self-explanatory.

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 opening line, 'Send an email immediately from the given account,' names the action, resource, and the immediate-send distinction that separates it from draft-oriented siblings like gmail_draft_send. The scope is unambiguous without needing to inspect parameters.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit situational guidance: for replies, pass thread_id and nothing else; use quote_history=false to suppress quoting; set html=true only for pre-HTML bodies. It does not explicitly name when to choose a draft tool instead, though 'immediately' implies that boundary.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools