gmail-mcp-multi

modify_email

Add or remove labels from emails and change read/unread status for any message in your Gmail accounts.

Instructions

Modify email labels (add/remove labels, mark read/unread)

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "modify_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	Yes	Account alias or email to use
`messageId`	Yes	The ID of the email message
`addLabelIds`	No	Label IDs to add
`removeLabelIds`	No	Label IDs to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions modification actions but does not cover side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns, how labels relate to account configuration, or prerequisites for using label IDs. More context is needed for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'mark read/unread' but there is no corresponding parameter. The parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema itself.

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 email labels, specifying actions like add/remove labels and mark read/unread. It distinguishes from siblings like send_email, read_email, and search_emails, which have different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage when label changes or read status updates are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server