DataToRAG

gws-mcp__gmail_update_label

Rename an existing Gmail label, or change its visibility. Takes the label ID (from gmail_list_labels), not the label name. Renaming a label keeps it on every message already labelled with it.

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": {
      "label_id": "<label_id>"
    },
    "name": "gws-mcp__gmail_update_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New label name. Nested labels use '/' (e.g. 'Alerts/Invoices')
`account`	No	Optional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
`label_id`	Yes	The label ID to update (from gmail_list_labels)
`label_list_visibility`	No	Whether the label shows in the label list: labelShow, labelShowIfUnread, or labelHide
`message_list_visibility`	No	Whether the label shows on messages in the message list: show or hide

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact beyond that: renaming preserves existing message associations rather than orphaning or re-tagging them. It does not say what happens on a name collision or whether an update touching only visibility leaves the name untouched.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the identifier requirement, then the consequence. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and safety hints in the annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor residual gaps are error behavior on duplicate names and whether unspecified fields are left unchanged.

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% (label_id, name with '/' nesting, account, and both visibility enums are all documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ID-vs-name distinction and the rename-preserves-labels effect but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Rename an existing Gmail label") plus a second supported operation (visibility change), and the phrase "existing" plus the ID requirement makes it clearly distinct from gmail_create_label and gmail_delete_label in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition and workflow: use the label ID from gmail_list_labels, not the label name. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g. 'to create a new label use gmail_create_label'), so the when-not case is only implied by 'existing'.

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

All DataToRAG tools Inspect

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.