Gmail MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_label

Remove unwanted labels from your Gmail account to organize your inbox by deleting specific labels using their unique ID.

Instructions

Delete a label

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The ID of the label to delete

Implementation Reference

src/index.ts:422-433 (registration)

Registration of the 'delete_label' MCP tool, including description, input schema, and inline handler function that deletes a Gmail label by ID using the Gmail API.

server.tool("delete_label",
  "Delete a label",
  {
    id: z.string().describe("The ID of the label to delete")
  },
  async (params) => {
    return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
      const { data } = await gmail.users.labels.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
      return formatResponse(data)
    })
  }
)

src/index.ts:427-432 (handler)

Handler implementation for 'delete_label' tool. Authenticates via handleTool, calls Gmail API to delete the specified label, and formats the response.

async (params) => {
  return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
    const { data } = await gmail.users.labels.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
    return formatResponse(data)
  })
}

src/index.ts:424-426 (schema)
Input schema for 'delete_label' tool using Zod: requires a string 'id' parameter for the label ID.
```
{
  id: z.string().describe("The ID of the label to delete")
},
```

src/index.ts:49-65 (helper)

Shared helper function 'handleTool' used by 'delete_label' (and other tools) to manage OAuth2 authentication, create Gmail client, execute the API call, and handle errors.

const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
  try {
    const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
    if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')

    const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
    if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')

    const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
    if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')

    const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
    return result
  } catch (error: any) {
    return `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}`
  }
}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0Jan 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / $schema
```
Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedNov 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the action itself, such as irreversibility, required permissions, or impacts on related resources (e.g., messages using the label). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to address these critical aspects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (three words) but lacks any informative content beyond the tool name. While concise, it does not earn its place by adding value; it merely restates the obvious.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the simple input schema and lack of output schema, the description should still cover return values (e.g., success/failure), error conditions, or behavior for non-existent labels. It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe invocation.

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 fully describes the required parameter 'id', so the description adds no additional meaning. Schema description coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline for a score of 3.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a label'), making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_label' or 'update_label', which could confuse an AI agent choosing between modification and deletion operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'patch_label' for updates, 'batch_modify_messages' for bulk actions). There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server