Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gmail: Mark unread

gmail_mark_unread
Destructive

Marks a Gmail message as unread by adding the UNREAD label, so you can restore attention to messages that still need review.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Mark a message as unread (adds the UNREAD label).

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_mark_unread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
message_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's main added value is the mechanism: the unread state is implemented as an UNREAD label. It does not mention that the change is easily reversible, or clarify whether re-applying to an already-unread message errors given idempotentHint=false.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mechanism in parentheses. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is mild noise but signals cross-provider consistency.

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?

For a simple state-toggle tool the core action is covered, but nothing explains the required "site" parameter, and with no output schema the agent also learns nothing about what is returned on success or failure.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two required parameters and adds nothing. "message" loosely maps to message_id, but the required "site" parameter is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Mark a message as unread") plus the mechanism (adds the UNREAD label), which is more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling gmail_mark_read, though the inverse relation is inferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus gmail_mark_read, gmail_add_label, or other label operations, and no stated prerequisites such as message ownership or auth scope. The agent must infer the use case from the name.

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