google-workspace-alias-mcp

list_emails

Retrieve emails from specified Gmail labels like INBOX, SENT, or custom labels, with optional search queries and result limits.

Instructions

List emails in inbox, sent, or specific label

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Optional search query filter
`labelIds`	No	Label IDs to list (e.g., ['INBOX'], ['SENT'], ['TRASH'])
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of emails to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 only states 'list', with no mention of read-only nature, pagination, or other behaviors. Adequate but lacking depth.

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 the verb first. It is concise but could benefit from a bit more structure or phrasing to improve clarity.

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 simple list operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but does not mention ordering, pagination, or relationship to other list/search tools. Could be more complete given sibling complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so with no added parameter details, the description adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists emails and specifies scoping (inbox, sent, or specific label). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_emails, which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_emails or read_email. The description provides no context for selection.

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