Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gws-mcp__gmail_list_labels

Read-only

List every label in the mailbox, system and user-created, with each label's ID, name and type. Use this to find the label ID that gmail_label_message, gmail_update_label and gmail_delete_label need.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gws-mcp__gmail_list_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds useful context: it returns both system and user-created labels and includes each label's ID, name and type. It does not mention pagination or account-scoping behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, zero waste, with the core action and returned fields front-loaded before the routing hint.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and why an agent would call it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter (account) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no meaning about the account parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every label in the mailbox') plus scope ('system and user-created') and the returned fields (ID, name, type). This clearly separates it from siblings like gmail_list_filters or gmail_create_label.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it ('to find the label ID') and names the three consuming tools (gmail_label_message, gmail_update_label, gmail_delete_label), so the agent knows the downstream purpose without inference.

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

All DataToRAG toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources