Skip to main content
Glama

get_smime_info

Retrieve the S/MIME configuration for a specific send-as email alias to manage email authentication and encryption settings effectively.

Instructions

Gets the specified S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe immutable ID for the S/MIME config
sendAsEmailYesThe email address that appears in the 'From:' header

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:1247-1258 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_smime_info' MCP tool, including inline schema definition and handler function that retrieves S/MIME configuration via Gmail API.
    server.tool("get_smime_info",
      "Gets the specified S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias",
      {
        sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The email address that appears in the 'From:' header"),
        id: z.string().describe("The immutable ID for the S/MIME config")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.get({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail, id: params.id })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
  • Handler function for the get_smime_info tool. It invokes the shared handleTool utility to authenticate, call the Gmail API endpoint for fetching specific S/MIME info, and format the response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.sendAs.smimeInfo.get({ userId: 'me', sendAsEmail: params.sendAsEmail, id: params.id })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Zod schema defining input parameters for get_smime_info: sendAsEmail and id.
    {
      sendAsEmail: z.string().describe("The email address that appears in the 'From:' header"),
      id: z.string().describe("The immutable ID for the S/MIME config")
    },
  • Shared helper function handleTool used by get_smime_info and all other tools for OAuth2 authentication, Gmail client creation, API call execution, and standardized error handling.
    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) {
        // Check for specific authentication errors
        if (
          error.message?.includes("invalid_grant") ||
          error.message?.includes("refresh_token") ||
          error.message?.includes("invalid_client") ||
          error.message?.includes("unauthorized_client") ||
          error.code === 401 ||
          error.code === 403
        ) {
          return formatResponse({
            error: `Authentication failed: ${error.message}. Please re-authenticate by running: npx @shinzolabs/gmail-mcp auth`,
          });
        }
    
        return formatResponse({ error: `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}` });
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Gets'), which implies non-destructive, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the config doesn't exist. For a tool with no 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero waste. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It covers the basic purpose and parameters are well-documented in the schema, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context. For a simple read tool, it's adequate but leaves room for improvement in behavioral transparency.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'sendAsEmail'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('S/MIME config'), specifying it's for a particular send-as alias. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_smime_info' (which likely lists multiple) and 'insert_smime_info' (which creates), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_smime_info' or 'set_default_smime_info'. The description implies usage when you need a specific config, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a basic functional statement without operational guidance.

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

Related 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/shinzo-labs/gmail-mcp'

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