Missive MCP

missive_create_shared_labels

Create shared labels to organize and tag conversations in your team inbox, with options for color, hierarchy, and sharing settings.

Instructions

Creates one or more shared labels (folder-like, team-shared conversation tags). Each label requires a name and an organization (organization falls back to MISSIVE_DEFAULT_ORGANIZATION). Optionally set color, a parent label, and sharing options.

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": {
      "shared_labels": "<shared_labels>"
    },
    "name": "missive_create_shared_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`shared_labels`	Yes	The shared labels to create (at least one).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only indicate destructiveHint: false. The description adds that creating labels is non-destructive and mentions the fallback for organization. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior on duplicate labels.

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, well-structured sentence that covers the tool's purpose, required parameters, optional parameters, and a default value. Every part adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (array of objects with multiple optional fields), the description is fairly complete. It covers all key aspects but lacks details on return values or error handling, which are not provided by an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has high coverage for the outer array but lacks individual descriptions for nested properties. The description compensates by listing all optional fields (color, parent, sharing options) and noting the fallback for organization, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 creates one or more shared labels, specifying their nature as 'folder-like, team-shared conversation tags.' It lists required and optional fields, distinguishing it from sibling create tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool (creating shared labels) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear, but explicit exclusions would improve the score.

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

Deploy Server