Skip to main content
Glama

batch_modify_messages

Modify labels on multiple Gmail messages simultaneously by adding or removing label IDs from selected emails.

Instructions

Modify the labels on multiple messages

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesThe IDs of the messages to modify
addLabelIdsNoA list of label IDs to add to the messages
removeLabelIdsNoA list of label IDs to remove from the messages

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'batch_modify_messages' tool. It uses the shared handleTool to call the Gmail API's users.messages.batchModify method with the provided message IDs and label modifications.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.messages.batchModify({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { ids: params.ids, addLabelIds: params.addLabelIds, removeLabelIds: params.removeLabelIds } })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for the batch_modify_messages tool: ids (required array of strings), addLabelIds and removeLabelIds (optional arrays of strings).
    {
      ids: z.array(z.string()).describe("The IDs of the messages to modify"),
      addLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to add to the messages"),
      removeLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to remove from the messages")
    },
  • src/index.ts:547-560 (registration)
    Registration of the 'batch_modify_messages' tool on the MCP server, including name, description, input schema, and inline handler function.
    server.tool("batch_modify_messages",
      "Modify the labels on multiple messages",
      {
        ids: z.array(z.string()).describe("The IDs of the messages to modify"),
        addLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to add to the messages"),
        removeLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to remove from the messages")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.messages.batchModify({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { ids: params.ids, addLabelIds: params.addLabelIds, removeLabelIds: params.removeLabelIds } })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared helper function 'handleTool' used by the batch_modify_messages handler (and other tools) to handle OAuth2 authentication, Gmail client creation, API call execution, and error handling including auth-specific errors.
    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) {
        // Check for specific authentication errors
        if (
          error.message?.includes("invalid_grant") ||
          error.message?.includes("refresh_token") ||
          error.message?.includes("invalid_client") ||
          error.message?.includes("unauthorized_client") ||
          error.code === 401 ||
          error.code === 403
        ) {
          return formatResponse({
            error: `Authentication failed: ${error.message}. Please re-authenticate by running: npx @shinzolabs/gmail-mcp auth`,
          });
        }
    
        return formatResponse({ error: `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}` });
      }
    }
  • Shared helper 'formatResponse' used by the handler to format the API response as MCP content.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is 'modify' but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about permissions, side effects, error conditions, and response format. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool without guessing at behavioral implications.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying label modification. It doesn't explain label ID formats, constraints on simultaneous add/remove, or effects on message visibility. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('modify') and resource ('labels on multiple messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from single-message operations like 'modify_message' by specifying 'multiple messages', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other label-related tools like 'update_label'.

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. It doesn't mention when batch modification is preferred over single-message operations, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'modify_message' or label-specific tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/faithk7/gmail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server