Skip to main content
Glama

get_label

Retrieve a specific Gmail label by its ID to access label details for email organization and management.

Instructions

Get a specific label by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the label to retrieve

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_label' tool. It uses handleTool to manage authentication and Gmail client creation, then calls the Gmail API to retrieve the specific label by its ID, and formats the response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.labels.get({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for the 'get_label' tool, defining a required string parameter 'id' for the label ID.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the label to retrieve")
    },
  • src/index.ts:435-446 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_label' tool on the MCP server, specifying name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool("get_label",
      "Get a specific label by ID",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the label to retrieve")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.labels.get({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared helper function used by all Gmail tools, including get_label, to handle OAuth2 authentication, client creation, and error handling around API calls.
    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}`
      }
    }
  • Helper function to format API responses into MCP-compatible content structure for tools like get_label.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects, leaving the agent to assume it is a simple read operation.

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 one concise sentence with no wasted words, conveying the essential information efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient but lacks any background on labels or prerequisites.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'id' is described adequately in the schema; the tool description 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 clearly states the action ('get'), the resource ('label'), and the selection criterion ('by ID'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_labels or update_label.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided, though the purpose is obvious enough for a single-resource retrieval; it could mention that list_labels retrieves all labels.

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