google-workspace-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail_label_create

Creates Gmail labels, including nested Parent/Child labels, and returns an existing label unchanged when it already exists. Create each parent level first.

Instructions

Create a label. Nested labels use 'Parent/Child' names; create each parent level first. Idempotent: an existing label is returned as-is.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_label_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`account`	Yes
`label_list_visibility`	No	labelShow
`message_list_visibility`	No	show

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: idempotency (existing labels returned as-is) and nesting requirements. This adds value beyond the tool name alone. However, it does not cover permissions, rate limits, or response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states the primary action, the second adds nested label usage and idempotency. Well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain all parameters or their defaults, and does not describe the return value for new labels. The nesting tip and idempotency note are helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It only hints at the 'name' parameter format for nesting, but provides no explanation for 'account', 'label_list_visibility', or 'message_list_visibility'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a label', specifying the action and resource. It also provides additional context about nested labels, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like gmail_labels_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear guidance on when to use the tool and how to handle nested labels (create parent first). It also notes idempotency, indicating safe repeated calls. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server