google-workspace-alias-mcp

modify_email

Update email labels in Gmail to mark read/unread, move to folders, or archive.

Instructions

Add or remove labels from an email (mark read/unread, move to folder, archive, etc.)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "modify_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`messageId`	Yes	The message ID to modify
`addLabelIds`	No	Labels to add (e.g., ['IMPORTANT', 'Label_123'])
`removeLabelIds`	No	Labels to remove (e.g., ['UNREAD', 'INBOX'])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only labels the operation as modifying labels but omits behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if messageId not found), idempotency, or whether it returns a result.

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 words. It efficiently conveys the core action and examples.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description minimally covers the operation. However, it lacks details on response, error states, and prerequisites, making it slightly incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds examples like ['IMPORTANT', 'Label_123'] and ['UNREAD', 'INBOX'] which provide additional context beyond schema descriptions, but does not significantly augment clarity.

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 verb 'Add or remove labels' and the resource 'an email', with concrete examples like 'mark read/unread, move to folder, archive'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_modify_emails (batch) and delete_email (deletion).

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 does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives such as batch_modify_emails for batch operations or delete_email for removal. No context or prerequisites are provided.

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