Skip to main content
Glama
taylorwilsdon

Google Workspace MCP Server - Control Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Chat, Forms & Drive

by taylorwilsdon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List Contact Groups

list_contact_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all contact groups (labels) for a specified Google user. Use this to view group memberships or organize contacts.

Instructions

List contact groups (labels) for the user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_sizeNoMaximum number of groups to return (default: 100, max: 1000).
page_tokenNoToken for pagination.
user_google_emailYesThe user's Google email address. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.28.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / page_token / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / page_token / type
      Added value: +"string"
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) fully carry the safety and behavioral profile, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no pagination consequences, rate limits, or auth requirements — but for a simple read-only list operation, the annotations lower the bar and adequately cover what matters.

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?

One sentence, seven words, with zero filler. The useful '(labels)' clarification is included without bloat. The description is appropriately minimal for a simple list operation and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple, read-only, idempotent list tool with a comprehensive output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and full safety annotations, the minimal description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only notable gap is the absence of sibling differentiation, which an agent must infer from the tool name.

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%, so all three parameters (page_size, page_token, user_google_email) already have descriptions, including default and max values for page_size. The description adds only 'for the user,' which loosely maps to user_google_email but provides no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('contact groups'), with the parenthetical '(labels)' clarifying Google Contacts terminology — a genuinely useful disambiguation. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_contacts by resource type, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate any sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With closely related siblings such as list_contacts, get_contact_group, and search_contacts, an agent gets no basis for choosing among them. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the minimal 'for the user' scope.

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