Skip to main content
Glama
vcnngr

gwagent

by vcnngr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gmail_reply_all

Replies to all recipients of the latest message in a Gmail conversation, with optional extra To/Cc/Bcc recipients and draft-only saving.

Instructions

Reply to everyone on the last message of a conversation (or of message_index).

Send is never repeated blind: when Gmail's reaction to Send is unclear the mail is looked up in Outbox / Sent; if that cannot tell, the op fails with error 'send_state_unknown' and nothing is re-sent (check gmail.list folder='sent' before any retry). A result may carry verified_in='outbox' | 'sent' when the send was confirmed that way.

Requires confirm=true (outward-facing or destructive).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoAdditional Cc recipients.
toNoAdditional To recipients.
bccNoAdditional Bcc recipients.
bodyNoText written above the quoted message (any Unicode, newlines allowed).
indexNoRow index of the conversation (from gmail.list / gmail.search); omit to use the conversation already open.
queryNoRun this Gmail search first and take `index` from its results.
folderNoOpen this folder/label first and take `index` from it.
confirmNoMust be true: this action is outward-facing or destructive.
draft_onlyNoSave the reply as a draft instead of sending it.
attachmentsNoPaths of files on this computer to attach.
drive_filesNoGoogle Drive files to insert as links: 'name' (found with Drive search) or '/Folder/name' (from My Drive).
message_indexNoAnswer this message of the thread (0 = oldest, numbering of gmail.read) through its own header actions; default: the last message.
expect_subjectNoSafety check: the conversation's subject must contain this text (case-insensitive), otherwise nothing is sent (not_found).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the outward-facing/destructive nature, the confirm requirement, no blind resend behavior, the 'send_state_unknown' failure mode, and the 'verified_in' result field. This is unusually rich behavioral context 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following paragraphs are compact and focused on non-obvious send/retry semantics. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 13-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose, confirmation, retry safety, and one result field. It does not fully describe the return payload, but the schema already covers parameter-level details.

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 the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description only echoes message_index and confirm and does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and scope: 'Reply to everyone on the last message of a conversation (or of message_index).' The 'everyone' scope distinguishes it from gmail_reply, and 'reply' distinguishes it from gmail_send.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') and retry guidance, but never states when to choose this over gmail_reply or gmail_send, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully routed.

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