Email MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_label

Creates a new email label for organizing messages. For ProtonMail, creates a folder; for IMAP, labels are auto-created.

Instructions

Create a new label. For ProtonMail, creates a folder under Labels/. For standard IMAP keywords, labels are auto-created on first use — this is a no-op.

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Label name (e.g., "Project-X"). For nested labels use "/" separator (e.g., "Work/Urgent").
`account`	Yes	Account name from list_accounts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.3Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: for ProtonMail it creates a folder under Labels/, while for IMAP it's a no-op because labels auto-create on first use. This is exactly the kind of behavior that goes beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior across account types and the no-op case. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with both 'name' and 'account' already documented. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new label') and the resource ('label'). It distinguishes behavior across ProtonMail and IMAP but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_label', which could be confused with 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when this tool has an effect (ProtonMail creates a folder) and when it is a no-op (IMAP labels auto-created). This implies usage guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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