Google Workspace MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

manage_contact_group

Create, update, or delete Google contact groups and modify their members. Specify the action, group ID, and contact IDs to add or remove contacts efficiently.

Instructions

Create, update, delete a contact group, or modify its members. Consolidated tool replacing create_contact_group, update_contact_group, delete_contact_group, and modify_contact_group_members.

Args: user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required. action (str): The action to perform: "create", "update", "delete", or "modify_members". group_id (Optional[str]): The contact group ID. Required for "update", "delete", and "modify_members" actions. name (Optional[str]): The group name. Required for "create" and "update" actions. delete_contacts (bool): If True and action is "delete", also delete contacts in the group (default: False). add_contact_ids (Optional[List[str]]): Contact IDs to add (for "modify_members"). remove_contact_ids (Optional[List[str]]): Contact IDs to remove (for "modify_members").

Returns: str: Result of the action performed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`action`	Yes
`group_id`	No
`add_contact_ids`	No
`delete_contacts`	No
`user_google_email`	Yes
`remove_contact_ids`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.14.3Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the action-specific requirements and the destructive delete_contacts flag, which is a meaningful side-effect disclosure. It could add permission or error-condition context, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 efficiently organized with an overview sentence, a consolidated-tool note, labeled Args, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a consolidated CRUD tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides nearly complete context: all actions, conditional parameter requirements, and side-effect behavior. The return type is stated, and the tool's relationship to the replaced legacy tools is clarified.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter, including which parameters are required for each action and the semantics of delete_contacts. This is exactly the kind of parameter-level guidance the schema lacks.

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 exact operations: create, update, delete a contact group, or modify its members. It also explicitly distinguishes itself as the consolidated replacement for four sibling tools, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 makes the intended use obvious by enumerating the four actions and naming the legacy tools it replaces. It does not explicitly say when to use listing/retrieval tools instead, but for a modification-focused tool the usage context is clear enough.

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

Deploy Server