google-workspace-mcp-server

List Gmail Labels

gmail_list_labels

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all Gmail labels including folders with their IDs and types. Supports markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

List all labels (folders) in Gmail.

Args:

response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): Output format (default: 'markdown')

Returns: List of all labels with their IDs and types.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gmail_list_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' or 'json'	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.3May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns label IDs and types, which is useful, but it does not cover potential edge cases like empty results or ordering.

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 concise, with a clear purpose line, an args section, and a returns section. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (list of labels with IDs and types) and the parameter behavior. No missing information for the intended use.

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 schema fully describes the response_format parameter with enum and default. The description's mention of response_format adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List all labels (folders) in Gmail', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling message/thread tools by focusing on labels.

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 context is clear: use when you need to list all labels. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple listing operation the usage is evident from the purpose.

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