Lists all Gmail labels to enable streamlined email folder management and organization.
List all Gmail labels (folders).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "google_gmail_labels"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'list all Gmail labels' without indicating that it is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to assess the tool's safety.
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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded within the same structure to include return type information without losing conciseness.
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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple operation, the description indicates the tool's basic function. However, it does not describe the format of the returned data (e.g., label IDs, names, system labels), which leaves the agent uncertain about the output structure.
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 input schema has zero parameters, which is trivial. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is no burden to compensate.
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 clearly states the tool lists all Gmail labels, using the verb 'List' and the resource 'Gmail labels'. Adding '(folders)' clarifies terminology. Among sibling tools, no other tool targets labels, making its purpose distinct.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context of sibling tools (e.g., google_gmail_read, google_gmail_search) implies that this tool is for listing labels, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.