Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

send_email

Send an email from any configured Gmail account, with support for CC, BCC, HTML formatting, and attachments.

Instructions

Send an email from one account (account required).

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": "send_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	Optional CC list.
`to`	Yes	Recipient email address(es).
`bcc`	No	Optional BCC list.
`body`	Yes	Email body.
`html`	No	Set true to send body as text/html.
`account`	Yes	Account id.
`subject`	Yes	Email subject.
`attachments`	No	Optional local file attachments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.2Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that sending an email is irreversible, requires authentication, or what happens on success/failure. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a schema that covers parameter details.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It omits behavioral details such as the email being sent immediately, attachment handling, or error cases, leaving the description incomplete for an agent.

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 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond reiterating that account is required, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool sends an email, using the specific verb 'send' and resource 'email'. It adds a constraint ('from one account (account required)') but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like send_draft.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_draft or create_draft. The only hint is that an account is required, which is a parameter constraint rather than usage context.

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

Deploy Server