create_labelCreate a Gmail label or IMAP folder to organize mail, including nested labels with Parent/Child names; optionally target a specific connected account.
Create a Gmail label (or IMAP folder). Use "Parent/Child" for nested labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| account | No | Account alias or email address. Omit to use the default account. No accounts connected yet. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nesting syntax but says nothing about behavior on duplicate names, permission requirements, or what the open-world side effect entails.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the nesting hint as the follow-up. Nothing to trim.
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?
For a simple two-parameter creation tool this is near-adequate, but with no output schema and only partial param coverage, an agent still lacks guidance on duplicate-label handling and the return value (e.g., the created label ID needed for later modify/delete calls).
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 coverage is 50%: `account` is described in the schema, but `name` has only type/minLength. The description compensates for `name` by explaining the 'Parent/Child' path format, but says nothing about `account` or how the default-account fallback behaves.
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?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (Gmail label / IMAP folder), making it immediately distinguishable from the sibling list_labels. The parenthetical dual resource is slightly loose but doesn't obscure the action.
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 only guidance is the nesting convention ('Parent/Child' for nested labels), which is useful but is a formatting hint rather than a when-to-use/when-not rule. It never contrasts this with alternatives or states prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected account).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.