List an account's email folders and their roles—inbox, sent, drafts, trash, spam, starred—so you can navigate or select mailboxes.
List navigable folders for an account, with roles (inbox, sent, drafts, trash, spam, starred).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | No | Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.11.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the meaningful domain context that folders have roles such as inbox, sent, drafts, trash, spam, and starred, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination, account-scoping behavior, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, resource, scope, and returned role categories compactly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the input schema has full description coverage, the description need not explain return values or parameter details. It adequately communicates the tool's purpose and folder-role semantics, though it could have distinguished this tool from list_labels more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single accountId parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that it is optional when exactly one account is connected. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (navigable folders) and enumerates the folder roles returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_labels tool, but the folder-role enumeration makes the intended resource clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as list_labels. Usage is only implied by the listing of folder roles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.