MCP Google Workspace Server

send_gmail

Send emails through Gmail with customizable subject, body, recipients, CC, BCC, and reply-to headers.

Instructions

Send an email through Gmail on behalf of the authenticated account.

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_gmail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No	CC recipients.
`to`	Yes	Recipient email addresses.
`bcc`	No	BCC recipients.
`body`	Yes	Email body content.
`subject`	Yes	Email subject line.
`reply_to`	No	Reply-To header address.
`body_type`	No	Body format. Defaults to text.	text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions 'on behalf of the authenticated account' but omits side effects (email sent irreversibly), permission requirements, rate limits, or quota implications. A sending action needs more behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence is concise but overly terse. Could benefit from breaking into purpose, usage, and behavior while remaining compact. No wasted words, but structure is flat.

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?

No output schema, and description fails to explain return value (e.g., message ID, status). Given 7 parameters and sending complexity, the description is insufficient. It omits error conditions, attachment handling, or reply-to behavior.

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% (all 7 parameters have descriptions). Baseline 3 applies. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a high-level purpose. No additional syntax, format details, or cross-parameter relationships are given.

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?

Description clearly states it sends an email via Gmail on behalf of the authenticated account. The verb 'send' and resource 'email through Gmail' are specific, and it distinguishes well from siblings like 'draft_gmail' which creates drafts, not sending.

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 draft_gmail or other methods. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authenticated Gmail account) or cases where draft_gmail might be preferable.

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

Deploy Server