DragApp MCP Server

remove_label_from_thread

Removes a shared label from an email thread or task to keep your boards organized.

Instructions

Remove a shared label from an email thread (or task).

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": {
      "threadId": "<threadId>",
      "labelId": "<labelId>",
      "boardId": "<boardId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_label_from_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`boardId`	Yes	The board ID the thread belongs to
`labelId`	Yes	The label ID to remove
`threadId`	Yes	The thread or task ID to remove the label from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is destructive, what happens if the label or thread does not exist, or any authorization requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action. It is efficient but could benefit from a brief note on expected behavior or context.

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 three well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information on success/error responses, idempotency, and whether the label removal is persistent.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'remove' and the resource 'shared label from an email thread (or task)'. It distinguishes from sibling 'add_label_to_thread' which performs the opposite action. However, the phrase 'or task' introduces slight ambiguity about the resource type, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_label_to_thread' or 'toggle_labels'. There are no prerequisites or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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