Gmail MCP Server

by neutral-Stage

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

batch_modify_emails

Batch modify labels on multiple Gmail emails, adding or removing labels to organize your inbox.

Instructions

Apply the same label modifications to multiple emails at once (up to 1000 IDs).

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "batch_modify_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	Yes	List of Gmail message IDs
`addLabelIds`	No	Label IDs to add
`removeLabelIds`	No	Label IDs to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the batch limit (1000 IDs), but does not disclose error handling, atomicity, partial success, or other behavioral traits. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema. The description omits return value, side effects, and failure behavior. For a batch operation with 3 parameters, it lacks completeness regarding what happens after execution.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value by stating 'same label modifications' and the batch size limit, but this is minimal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'apply' and resource 'label modifications to multiple emails', with a specific scope 'up to 1000 IDs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_email (single) and batch_trash_emails (different action).

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 implies batch usage and the limit, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_email for single emails or other batch operations. However, the context from sibling tools makes the distinction clear.

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