google-workspace-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail_send

Send an email immediately from a specified Google account, including CC/BCC and HTML body options. For replies, use a thread ID and RFC822 Message-Id to keep messages threaded correctly.

Instructions

Send an email immediately from the given account.

For replies, pass thread_id AND in_reply_to_message_id (the RFC822
Message-Id header value, NOT the Gmail message id) so the reply
threads correctly.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No
`to`	Yes
`bcc`	No
`body`	Yes
`html`	No
`account`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`thread_id`	No
`in_reply_to_message_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states the email is sent immediately and warns that in_reply_to_message_id must be RFC822 Message-Id, not Gmail id. Discloses important behavioral detail about reply threading. Could also mention that sending is irreversible.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence gives main action, second adds crucial reply context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description partially addresses the complexity. It covers key parameters for sending and replying but omits cc, bcc, html, and output behavior. Could be more complete.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains account, to, subject, body (implicitly), and gives detailed semantics for thread_id and in_reply_to_message_id. However, it does not cover cc, bcc, or html parameters, leaving gaps.

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?

Clearly states 'Send an email immediately from the given account.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like gmail_draft_create or gmail_draft_send by emphasizing immediate sending.

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?

Explicitly explains how to use the tool for replies, including needed parameters thread_id and in_reply_to_message_id. It implies usage for new emails without these. No explicit when-not-to-use, but clear enough for the agent.

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

Deploy Server