Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Email MCP Server

Email MCP Server

by 123jixinyu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

remove_label

Idempotent

Remove a label from an email. For ProtonMail, removes the email from the label folder; for Gmail and IMAP, removes the keyword flag.

Instructions

Remove a label from an email. For ProtonMail, this removes the email from the label folder. For Gmail and standard IMAP, this removes a keyword flag.

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>",
      "emailId": "<emailId>",
      "mailbox": "<mailbox>",
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "remove_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYesLabel name to remove
accountYesAccount name from list_accounts
emailIdYesEmail ID (UID) from list_emails
mailboxYesMailbox containing the email (must be a real folder)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutating but idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining provider-specific effects (ProtonMail folder vs Gmail/IMAP keyword flag), which is not captured in 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 action, and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's behavior for its complexity, including provider differences. It lacks a mention of return value, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('label from an email'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_label and delete_label. It also specifies provider-specific semantics, enhancing clarity.

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 usage for removing labels from emails but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like delete_label or mark_email. It provides provider context but no exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools