gmail_list_labelsList all Gmail labels, including system and custom, with their IDs so an AI agent can reference the right label when triaging messages.
List all Gmail labels (system and custom) with their ids.
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that both system and custom labels are returned and that ids are included, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or auth requirements. Low risk for a list operation, hence mid-range rather than low.
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?
A single short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and zero filler. Every element earns its place.
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 no-argument, no-output-schema read tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, the scope, and the key returned field (ids). Only edge details such as ordering or pagination are absent, which is acceptable given the simplicity.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no argument surface to document and the description correctly adds nothing spurious about inputs.
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 and resource (list Gmail labels) plus scope (system and custom) and return content (ids). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like gmail_apply_label or gmail_get_message, which operate on messages rather than enumerating labels.
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, prerequisites, or named alternatives. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool the usage is strongly implied (fetch label ids before labeling), but the description leaves that inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.