Lists all folders and labels in the connected mailbox, returning names you can use with email search and read actions.
List all folders/labels in the connected mailbox.
Returns folder names that can be passed to search_emails and read_email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description usefully adds that the output is a folder-name vocabulary consumed by search/read tools. It says nothing about pagination, folder hierarchies, or error behavior for a disconnected mailbox.
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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by why the agent cares about the result. Zero filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details are out of scope, and a parameterless read-only tool needs little else. The one missing piece is how it relates to the sibling search_all_folders, which the agent must infer.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; nothing in the schema needs elaboration and the description correctly does not invent any.
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 all folders/labels in the connected mailbox'), and clarifies the returned values feed search_emails and read_email. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_all_folders, so it falls short of a 5.
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 downstream hint ('names that can be passed to search_emails and read_email') implies a discovery use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the likely alternative search_all_folders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.