Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Google Multi-Account Server

MCP Google Multi-Account Server

by bkbaheti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gmail_list_labels

List all Gmail labels for a specified Google account, including system labels like INBOX and SENT and custom user labels.

Instructions

List all Gmail labels (system labels like INBOX, SENT, etc. and custom user labels). Requires full scope.

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_list_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountIdYesThe Google account ID, alias, or email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: requires full scope and includes system labels. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe return format/pagination, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, the label types included, and the auth requirement. No wasted words, excellent structure.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essentials: what it does, the auth requirement, and the parameter. It could mention the return shape, but that is not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 schema description covers the single parameter (accountId) fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: 'List all Gmail labels' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes system labels from custom user labels, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling label management tools.

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?

The description provides clear context that this is for listing all labels and notes the 'full scope' prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no alternative list-labels tool exists, so the guidance is adequate. Still, it could be more explicit about using this tool to retrieve label IDs for subsequent operations.

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