google_gmail_listList Gmail inbox messages newest first, optionally filter by Gmail search query, and page through results for a chosen account.
List messages from the inbox, newest first, with an optional Gmail search query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Gmail search query (e.g. from:bob, newer_than:2d). | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| pageToken | No | Page token from a previous result's nextPageToken. | |
| maxResults | No | Max messages (default 25). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / pageTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page token from a previous result's nextPageToken.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first') and inbox scoping, but says nothing about what the result set contains (IDs/snippets vs full bodies), whether pagination is needed (the schema hints at it via pageToken), or whether spam/trash/other labels are included — an agent can't tell whether a follow-up google_gmail_get call is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-formed sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant or padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say what a returned message looks like and whether it's a summary or full payload. It covers scope and ordering adequately but leaves the return shape and follow-up path (get vs list) unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, account, pageToken, and maxResults with examples and a default. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating that the query is optional; baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb plus resource ('List messages from the inbox') with scope qualifiers (newest first, optional search query). It distinguishes itself from google_gmail_send/get/drafts by its inbox-listing nature, but never names a sibling such as google_gmail_threads_list or google_gmail_list_attachments, which a reader must infer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The sentence implies a list operation with an optional query, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over google_gmail_threads_list, google_gmail_drafts_list, or google_gmail_get for retrieving mail content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.