Skip to main content
Glama

modify_thread

Update Gmail thread organization by adding or removing labels to categorize and manage email conversations.

Instructions

Modify the labels applied to a thread

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the thread to modify
addLabelIdsNoA list of label IDs to add to the thread
removeLabelIdsNoA list of label IDs to remove from the thread

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'modify_thread' tool. It destructures the thread ID and passes the remaining params as threadData to the Gmail API's threads.modify method via the shared handleTool utility.
    async (params) => {
      const { id, ...threadData } = params
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.modify({ userId: 'me', id, requestBody: threadData })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for the 'modify_thread' tool: required thread ID and optional label IDs to add or remove.
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to modify"),
      addLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to add to the thread"),
      removeLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to remove from the thread")
    },
  • src/index.ts:756-770 (registration)
    Registration of the 'modify_thread' tool using server.tool(), including description, input schema, and inline handler function.
    server.tool("modify_thread",
      "Modify the labels applied to a thread",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to modify"),
        addLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to add to the thread"),
        removeLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to remove from the thread")
      },
      async (params) => {
        const { id, ...threadData } = params
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.modify({ userId: 'me', id, requestBody: threadData })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared 'handleTool' utility function used by the 'modify_thread' handler to manage OAuth2 authentication, Gmail client creation, and API call execution with error handling.
    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}`
      }
    }
  • Utility function 'formatResponse' used by the 'modify_thread' handler to format the API response as MCP content.
    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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'modify the labels' without noting side effects, such as whether removing all labels deletes the thread or how adding/removing affects existing labels. The behavior is implied but not explicitly described.

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 a single sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it quick to parse and free of waste.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but misses details like whether add and remove can be used simultaneously or if there is a limit on label count. It does not clarify if modifying the thread affects all messages within it, which is important context.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (id, addLabelIds, removeLabelIds), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description 'Modify the labels applied to a thread' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 tool modifies labels on a thread, specifying the verb 'modify' and the resource 'labels applied to a thread'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_message (which modifies message labels) and batch_modify_messages (which modifies multiple messages).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_message or batch_modify_messages. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or related tools, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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