gmail-fast-mcp

by jeffmm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

create_filter

Create a Gmail filter using custom match criteria and automated actions like labeling, removing labels, or forwarding.

Instructions

Create a new Gmail filter with custom criteria and actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	Actions to perform (addLabelIds, removeLabelIds, forward)
`criteria`	Yes	Criteria for matching emails (from, to, subject, query, negatedQuery, hasAttachment, excludeChats, size, sizeComparison)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'create' and does not disclose side effects, such as the filter immediately affecting incoming email, potential duplicate filters, permission requirements, or validation behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could have included a brief usage pointer without becoming verbose.

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?

For a tool with nested objects, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out behavioral context and alternative-tool routing. The schema covers parameter structure, so the main missing piece is usage guidance and side-effect disclosure.

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 the input schema already explains criteria and action objects. The description adds only the word 'custom,' which is minimal and does not meaningfully extend what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is specific: 'Create a new Gmail filter' names the verb and resource, and 'with custom criteria and actions' adds scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from create_filter_from_template and from list/get/delete siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_filter_from_template. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or that template-based creation should use a sibling tool.

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