Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Timbre

Timbre

by alejandrosml
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

rename_mailbox

Rename a mailbox, folder, or Gmail label, or move it inside another using a slash path; messages and nested mailboxes move with it.

Instructions

Rename a mailbox (a folder, or a Gmail label), or move it inside another (to with "/"), on its mail server, with every message and the mailboxes inside it. As with delete_mailbox, the first time in an account a window on the Mac asks the user for its password. Never an account's inbox, sent mail, drafts, trash or junk, nor the provider's own folders. Undo renames it back.

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": {
      "mailbox": "<mailbox>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "rename_mailbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesIts new name ("Factures 2026"), kept where it is; or, with "/", its whole new path as Mail would show it ("Archives/Factures"), to put it inside another mailbox.
accountNoIts account, when the name exists in several accounts.
mailboxYesThe mailbox to rename: its name or path, as list_mailboxes or Mail shows it.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
accountYes
mailboxYesAs Mail shows it.
on_serverYesIts path on the server.
undo_tokenNoGive it to undo to take the change back.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), it discloses the scope of side effects (the rename carries every message and nested mailbox), the first-use authorization flow (a macOS password window, cross-referenced to delete_mailbox), the protected-mailbox guardrails, and reversibility via undo. That is the behavioral context an agent needs before firing a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Front-loads the verb and the two modes, then layers guardrails and auth in descending importance, with no filler sentences. The phrasing around "on its mail server, with every message and the mailboxes inside it" is slightly compressed and takes a second read, keeping it from a 5.

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 three-parameter mutation with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything else that matters: scope of effect, protected mailboxes, first-use auth, and undo. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself already documents the "/" path semantics and the account disambiguation. The description restates the "/" convention ("to with \"/\"") without adding syntax, collision, or validation detail beyond it, so this is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (rename) plus a secondary mode (move inside another with "/") and names the resource precisely as "a mailbox (a folder, or a Gmail label)", which resolves the folder/label terminology gap for the agent. It also scopes the effect to "on its mail server, with every message and the mailboxes inside it", distinguishing it from siblings like create_mailbox or move_mail.

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?

Gives explicit exclusions ("Never an account's inbox, sent mail, drafts, trash or junk, nor the provider's own folders") that tell the agent when this call will fail, and points to undo as the reversal path. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for the create case, but the boundary conditions are clear enough to route correctly.

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