Skip to main content
Glama

modify_thread

Change labels on Gmail threads to organize your inbox by adding or removing specific labels from email conversations.

Instructions

Modify the labels applied to a thread

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the thread to modify
addLabelIdsNoA list of label IDs to add to the thread
removeLabelIdsNoA list of label IDs to remove from the thread

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:789-803 (registration)
    Registration of the 'modify_thread' MCP tool, including description, Zod input schema, and inline handler function that invokes the Gmail API threads.modify endpoint.
    server.tool("modify_thread",
      "Modify the labels applied to a thread",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to modify"),
        addLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to add to the thread"),
        removeLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to remove from the thread")
      },
      async (params) => {
        const { id, ...threadData } = params
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.modify({ userId: 'me', id, requestBody: threadData })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The core handler function for 'modify_thread' tool execution. It destructures the thread ID and label modifications from params, wraps the Gmail threads.modify API call in the shared handleTool utility for auth and error handling, and formats the response.
    async (params) => {
      const { id, ...threadData } = params
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.modify({ userId: 'me', id, requestBody: threadData })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Zod schema for input validation of the 'modify_thread' tool, specifying required thread ID and optional label IDs to add/remove.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to modify"),
      addLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to add to the thread"),
      removeLabelIds: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("A list of label IDs to remove from the thread")
    },
  • Shared 'handleTool' helper used by 'modify_thread' and other tools for OAuth2 authentication, credential validation, Gmail client initialization, API execution, and specialized error handling for auth issues.
    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}` });
      }
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'modify the labels' without noting side effects, such as whether removing all labels deletes the thread or how adding/removing affects existing labels. The behavior is implied but not explicitly described.

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 sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it quick to parse and free of waste.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but misses details like whether add and remove can be used simultaneously or if there is a limit on label count. It does not clarify if modifying the thread affects all messages within it, which is important context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (id, addLabelIds, removeLabelIds), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description 'Modify the labels applied to a thread' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 labels on a thread, specifying the verb 'modify' and the resource 'labels applied to a thread'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_message (which modifies message labels) and batch_modify_messages (which modifies multiple messages).

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 like modify_message or batch_modify_messages. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or related tools, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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