Cherami

Update conversation labels

update_thread_labels

Add or remove labels on every message currently in a conversation, received and sent. Later messages in the conversation do not get these labels.

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": {
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_thread_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`thread_id`	Yes
`add_labels`	No
`remove_labels`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The conversation's current ID.
`inbox_id`	Yes
`add_labels`	Yes
`sent_count`	Yes
`message_count`	Yes	Number of messages updated, including ones that already had these labels.
`remove_labels`	Yes
`received_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Canonical thread ID at selection."New value: +"The conversation's current ID."

changedOutput schema / properties / message_count / description

Previous value: -"Number of messages updated, including copies that already had the requested labels."New value: +"Number of messages updated, including ones that already had these labels."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / message_count / description

Previous value: -"Number of messages updated, including copies that already had the requested labels; excludes concurrently deleted copies."New value: +"Number of messages updated, including copies that already had the requested labels."

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world). The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: labels apply to every message currently in the conversation, both received and sent, and future messages are excluded. It does not cover permissions or return behavior, but the annotations and output schema reduce the burden.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the temporal caveat follows immediately without unnecessary detail.

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 annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious behavior: scope to current messages and exclusion of future messages. It could say more about permissions or repeated-call behavior, but for an agent selecting and invoking the tool, the essential context is present.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies that add_labels and remove_labels are used to add or remove labels and that thread_id identifies a conversation; it adds no label format, array limits, case-sensitivity, or add/remove edge-case semantics beyond what the parameter names already suggest.

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 states a specific action: adding or removing labels on every message currently in a conversation, received and sent. This scoping clearly distinguishes it from message-level and sent-message-level label tools, which update individual messages rather than an entire conversation's existing messages.

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 the tool is for applying labels across all current messages in a thread and warns that later messages will not receive them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_message_labels or update_sent_message_labels, nor does it state when-not to use this tool.

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

All Cherami 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.

Resources

Need Help?