mailmcp

List folders / labels

list_folders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve folders or Gmail labels for a mail account with message and unseen counts, so you can choose the correct folder to search or read.

Instructions

Lists folders (Gmail: labels) with message and unseen counts. On Outlook path is an opaque id and name the hierarchy ("Projects/2026"); tools accept either as a folder.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	Yes	list_accounts id

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	Yes
`folders`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.13.12Oct 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / account / description

Previous value: -"Account id from list_accounts"New value: +"list_accounts id"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "account": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "folders": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "account",
+    "folders"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results carry message and unseen counts and explains the Outlook path-vs-name relationship, which is useful cross-provider context, though return-format detail is largely delegated to the output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the one cross-provider nuance that matters. No filler, though the parenthetical Gmail/Outlook framing is slightly dense.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is needed: purpose, terminology mapping, and what the results contain. Missing explicit usage guidance keeps it just short of a 5.

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% and the single input param (account) is fully documented, so baseline is 3. The description's mentions of `path` and `name` refer to folder fields used by other tools rather than this tool's inputs, so it clarifies surrounding semantics but adds nothing to the account parameter itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists folders') and adds a valuable cross-provider clarification that Gmail calls these 'labels' and includes message/unseen counts. It does not distinguish itself from any named sibling (e.g. list_accounts, search), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 never says when to call this versus alternatives such as search or list_accounts, nor any prerequisites. The second sentence addresses parameter semantics across tools, not usage selection, so an agent gets no routing guidance.

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