Which integrations are available for this server?

Allows interacting with Gmail to list, read, and search emails, and manage labels.

How do I use gmail-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@gmail-mcp list my 5 most recent emails" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

de en es ja ko ru zh

gmail-mcp

by SymbolStar

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Gmail MCP Server

Gmail MCP Server is a Node.js/TypeScript-based MCP stdio server that allows OpenClaw to read Gmail emails via the Model Context Protocol.

Features

Uses Gmail API OAuth 2.0 authorization with read-only scope: https://www.googleapis.com/auth/gmail.readonly
list_emails: Lists inbox emails, supporting maxResults and Gmail query filtering
get_email: Reads details of a single email via messageId
search_emails: Searches for emails using Gmail search syntax
list_labels: Lists all Gmail labels/folders
Supports MCP stdio transport for OpenClaw integration

Related MCP server: gmail-mcp

Requirements

Node.js 18 or higher
npm
A Google account with access to the Gmail API

Installation

npm install
npm run build

Create OAuth Credentials in Google Cloud Console

Open the Google Cloud Console.
Create or select a project.
Go to APIs & Services -> Library, search for and enable Gmail API.
Go to APIs & Services -> OAuth consent screen.
Select the user type. For personal use, usually select External.
Fill in the application name, user support email, and developer contact email.
In the Scopes step, add the Gmail read-only permission: https://www.googleapis.com/auth/gmail.readonly.
If the app is in Testing status, add your Gmail account to Test users.
Go to APIs & Services -> Credentials.
Click Create Credentials -> OAuth client ID.
Select Desktop app as the Application type.
Download the JSON file after creation.

Place credentials.json

Create the configuration directory and save the downloaded OAuth JSON as:

mkdir -p ~/.gmail-mcp
chmod 700 ~/.gmail-mcp
cp /path/to/downloaded/client_secret.json ~/.gmail-mcp/credentials.json
chmod 600 ~/.gmail-mcp/credentials.json

The final path must be:

~/.gmail-mcp/credentials.json

Run Authorization Flow

npm run auth

The script will:

Start a temporary local OAuth callback service
Open the browser for Google authorization
Save the token to ~/.gmail-mcp/token.json after authorization is complete

If the browser does not open automatically, the terminal will print the authorization URL; copy it to your browser manually.

Start MCP Server

npm run start

start uses stdio transport and is typically started by OpenClaw as an MCP server subprocess; it does not need to be run manually for long periods.

OpenClaw MCP Configuration Example

Point the command to the built entry point of this project:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "gmail": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/Volumes/DevDisk/symbol/gmailMCP/dist/src/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

You can also start it using npm within the project directory:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "gmail": {
      "command": "npm",
      "args": ["run", "start"],
      "cwd": "/Volumes/DevDisk/symbol/gmailMCP"
    }
  }
}

Tools Parameter Description

list_emails

List inbox emails.

{
  "maxResults": 10,
  "query": "from:example@gmail.com newer_than:7d"
}

maxResults: Optional, default 10, maximum 50
query: Optional, Gmail search syntax, restricted to INBOX queries

get_email

Read details of a single email.

{
  "messageId": "18f..."
}

Returned fields include sender, recipient, subject, date, labels, body text, HTML body, and attachment metadata.

search_emails

Search Gmail emails.

{
  "query": "subject:invoice has:attachment newer_than:30d",
  "maxResults": 10
}

query: Required, supports Gmail search syntax
maxResults: Optional, default 10, maximum 50

list_labels

List all labels/folders.

{}

File Locations

OAuth credentials: ~/.gmail-mcp/credentials.json
OAuth token: ~/.gmail-mcp/token.json
MCP server entry point: dist/src/index.js

FAQ

Missing Gmail OAuth credentials

Confirm that you have downloaded the Google OAuth client JSON and saved it to:

~/.gmail-mcp/credentials.json

Missing Gmail OAuth token

Run the following first:

npm run auth

access_denied or app not verified

If the OAuth consent screen is still in Testing status, you need to add the current Gmail account to Test users.

invalid_grant

Delete the old token and re-authorize:

rm ~/.gmail-mcp/token.json
npm run auth

Available Tools

4 tools

get_emailA

Read one Gmail message by messageId.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`messageId`	Yes	Gmail message id.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Read,' which implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not detail error handling, permissions required, or what the response contains. This is minimally adequate for a simple read 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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It could be improved by briefly noting what the tool returns (e.g., message content or metadata), but it still provides enough context for basic usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (messageId: 'Gmail message id.'). The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one Gmail message by messageId.' It distinguishes from siblings like list_emails (list multiple) and search_emails (search), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies that the tool is used when you have a specific messageId, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_emails for browsing, search_emails for filtering). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

list_emailsB

List Gmail inbox messages. Supports maxResults and Gmail query filters.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of emails to return. Default 10, max 50.
`query`	No	Optional Gmail search query, applied within INBOX.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Mentions it lists inbox messages and supports parameters, but no details on pagination, response format, or conditions like invalid queries. For a read operation, minimal disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Efficiently conveys the core purpose and supported features.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers basics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, leaving gaps for an AI agent to make informed decisions.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (maxResults: default, min, max; query: optional within INBOX). Description merely restates that parameters are supported, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'List Gmail inbox messages' with verb and resource, distinguishing from get_email (single email) and list_labels (labels). However, does not explicitly differentiate from search_emails, which may also list emails but with different scope.

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 vs alternatives like search_emails. Only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

list_labelsA

List all Gmail labels and folders.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It states the action but lacks details like pagination, data scope, or authentication requirements. For a simple list, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains all necessary information without waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not add parameter information beyond the schema.

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 'List all Gmail labels and folders' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that deal with emails (get_email, list_emails, search_emails).

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated, the sibling context makes it clear this is for labels/folders vs. emails, implying appropriate usage.

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

search_emailsA

Search Gmail messages with Gmail search syntax.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Gmail search query string.
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of emails to return. Default 10, max 50.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only mentions search syntax, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or whether results include full messages or metadata.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds meaning.

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?

Lacks details on return format (e.g., fields, pagination) and how it differs from list_emails. No output schema, so description should provide more context.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying query uses 'Gmail search syntax', which is essential for correct invocation.

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 verb (Search) and resource (Gmail messages) using specific syntax. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_email (single) and list_labels.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use search vs alternatives like list_emails or get_email. The description is minimally adequate but lacks contextual differentiation.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

4 tool updatesv0.0.1May 7, 2026
- First observedget_email
- First observedlist_emails
- First observedlist_labels
- First observedsearch_emails

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: reading a single email by ID, listing inbox messages, searching with Gmail syntax, and listing labels. There is no overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_email, list_emails, list_labels, search_emails.

Tool Count4/5

With 4 tools, the set is concise and scoped to basic read and list operations. While it covers common use cases, it could be expanded with write operations, but the count is reasonable for a focused subset.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface lacks write operations such as sending, deleting, or modifying emails and labels. Users cannot perform actions beyond reading and listing, which is a significant gap for comprehensive Gmail management.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

email A
dev.primitive
Email infrastructure for AI agents — send, receive, search, and reply to email over MCP.
Email Communication
302
sebastianall1977-gmail-mcpOAuth
ai.smithery
Manage Gmail end-to-end: search, read, send, draft, label, and organize threads. Automate workflow…
Communication App Automation Workplace & Productivity
2
MCP Emails AOAuth
com.mcpemails
Read, search, send, organize, draft and schedule email across your inboxes from any MCP client.
Communication Email
25
google-workspaceOAuth
com.proscendia
Permissioned access to Gmail, Drive and Calendar via the user's own Google account
Email Cloud Storage Calendar Management
1

Related MCP Servers

Gmail MCP Server
App Automation Communication
cablate
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Provides comprehensive Gmail integration with LLM processing capabilities, allowing users to read, search, filter emails and handle attachments through the Model Context Protocol.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-02-16 15:05 UTC)
127
2
MIT
gmail-mcp
Communication App Automation
dedalus-labs
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables full management of Gmail accounts, including messages, threads, labels, and drafts. It leverages the Gmail API to allow searching, sending, and organizing emails via secure OAuth2 authentication.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-02-28 02:20 UTC)
MIT
Gmail MCP Server
Email Communication
Imsharad
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Provides access to Gmail functionality through the Model Context Protocol, allowing LLMs like Claude to interact with your email.
Updated a year ago (2025-05-21 09:40 UTC)
2
-
Gmail MCP Server
Email Communication
TechVest-Global
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI agents to manage Gmail through natural language, including search, read, send, label, and draft operations via the Model Context Protocol.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-12-16 12:19 UTC)
-

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SymbolStar/gmail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server