Skip to main content
Glama
sahildhurat

Google Workspace MCP Server

by sahildhurat
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: append_to_google_doc targets Google Docs, while draft_email and send_email target Gmail with different actions (create draft vs send). No overlap exists between the three tools.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: append_to_google_doc, draft_email, send_email. The pattern is predictable and uniform across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    At 3 tools for a 'Google Workspace MCP Server,' the count feels too low. The server name suggests broader coverage of multiple Google Workspace services, but only Docs (append) and Gmail (draft/send) are represented, making the scope overly narrow.

    Completeness1/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for Google Workspace. Key operations like creating or reading Google Docs, listing emails, managing labels, or handling attachments are missing. Agents cannot perform basic CRUD workflows for either Docs or Gmail.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided. The description only indicates a write operation but omits details like authentication, error cases, and parameter effects (e.g., leading_newline, add_timestamp_heading). Insufficient for full transparency.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single sentence, which is concise but fails to convey essential usage details.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete, missing parameter semantics, return values, and behavioral notes.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no explanation of parameters (content, document_id, leading_newline, add_timestamp_heading) beyond their names.

    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 specific verb 'Append' and the resource 'Google Doc', and it distinguishes from sibling email tools.

    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 implies using this tool when needing to add text to a document. Siblings are unrelated (email tools), so no confusion, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'send an email immediately', which is minimal. It lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or confirmation of sending. The description is insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

    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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action ('Send an email immediately'). Every word is meaningful with no redundancy.

    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?

    Given the tool has 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error states, or how to properly structure inputs like 'to' or 'body'. This incomplete context makes it harder for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    The schema has 0% description coverage for its 6 parameters, and the tool description provides no additional explanation for any parameter. The meaning of fields like 'body_type' or the format of email addresses is not clarified. This severely hampers correct parameter usage.

    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 tool sends an email immediately via the authenticated Gmail account. The verb 'send' and resource 'email' are precise, and the mention of Gmail distinguishes it from siblings like 'append_to_google_doc' and 'draft_email'.

    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 implies usage for sending versus drafting (via 'immediately'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over 'draft_email' or when not to use it. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description only states it creates a draft without sending, but omits important behavioral details such as permission requirements, draft storage, or conflict handling.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.

    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?

    Given 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover how drafts are stored, how to send later, or what the return value is, leaving significant gaps.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (to, cc, bcc, etc.), leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names which may not convey format or constraints.

    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 'Create a draft' with the specific resource 'in the authenticated Gmail account', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_email' by adding 'without sending'.

    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 phrase 'without sending' implies not to use this tool when sending is intended, but lacks explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives compared to siblings.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcpserver1 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcpserver1 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/sahildhurat/mcpserver1'

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