Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Capes

Capes

by Dipeshpal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gmail_create_label

Create a Gmail label for organizing messages, including nested labels using a slash such as Work/Invoices.

Instructions

Create a label. Use '/' for nested labels (Work/Invoices).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_create_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive and open-world. The description adds the nesting behavior via '/', which is a useful trait beyond annotations, but omits what happens on duplicate names or required scope/permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and zero filler. Every part earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter format adequately. Minor gaps (duplicate handling, return value) are low-cost for this complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description compensates by documenting the '/'-delimiter convention for nested labels (Work/Invoices), giving syntax the schema lacks. It does not clarify other formatting constraints, but it adds real meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a label'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_delete_label and gmail_list_labels by the verb. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no when-to-use context and no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., how it relates to gmail_modify or gmail_delete_label). The nesting tip is a format hint, not usage guidance.

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