list_labelsLists Gmail labels or IMAP folders with their IDs for one or more accounts, enabling targeted organization and filtering.
List Gmail labels (or IMAP folders) with their ids for one or more accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Which mailbox(es): an alias, an email address, a list of them, or "all". Omit to use ALL connected accounts. 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=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include ids and can cover Gmail labels or IMAP folders, but it does not describe ordering, pagination, or response shape.
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?
The definition is one tight sentence that front-loads the action, resource, return content, and account scope. There is no redundant or wasted wording.
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, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely sufficient and even notes that ids are returned despite no output schema. A small gap remains around ordering or pagination, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.
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?
The single 'account' parameter has full schema description coverage, including aliases, email addresses, lists, and 'all'. The description echoes the multi-account scope but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List Gmail labels (or IMAP folders)' and clarifies that it returns ids across one or more accounts. It is clear enough to distinguish from create_label by verb, but it does not explicitly contrast with other listing siblings such as list_filters or list_accounts.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'List' and the mention of one or more accounts, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The multi-account wording helps slightly, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.