Creates a new Naver Mail label (folder) for organizing messages. Supports nested paths like 'Projects/Alpha' and automatically creates missing parent folders.
Creates a new user label (a Naver Mail folder). Nested labels use '/', e.g. 'Projects/Alpha'; missing parents are created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| displayName | Yes | Label name, e.g. 'Receipts' or 'Projects/Alpha'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect the annotations cannot express: missing parent labels are created automatically along the '/' path. It stops short of saying what happens when the label already exists, which matters given idempotentHint=false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the naming/side-effect detail packed into the second. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter creation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete: it explains the resource, the path syntax, and the parent auto-creation behavior. The remaining gap is duplicate-name handling, which an agent calling a non-idempotent create would reasonably want to know.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema already includes the same 'Projects/Alpha' style example, so the description adds little new parameter detail. Its nesting syntax remark reinforces the schema rather than extending it; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('a new user label'), and adds the clarifying gloss '(a Naver Mail folder)' so the agent knows what a label is in this domain. The create/update/delete/list distinction against siblings like update_label and list_labels is unambiguous from the verb alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for making a new label, and the nested-path syntax tells it how to name one. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_label, or on checking list_labels first to avoid duplicates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.