Google Workspace MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

manage_gmail_label

Create, update, or delete Gmail labels for any user. Specify the action and account email, then set label name or ID and visibility options to organize mail.

Instructions

Manages Gmail labels: create, update, or delete labels.

Args: user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required. action (Literal["create", "update", "delete"]): Action to perform on the label. name (Optional[str]): Label name. Required for create, optional for update. label_id (Optional[str]): Label ID. Required for update and delete operations. label_list_visibility (Literal["labelShow", "labelHide"]): Whether the label is shown in the label list. message_list_visibility (Literal["show", "hide"]): Whether the label is shown in the message list.

Returns: str: Confirmation message of the label operation.

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": {
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_gmail_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No
`action`	Yes
`label_id`	No
`user_google_email`	Yes
`label_list_visibility`	No	labelShow
`message_list_visibility`	No	show

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.14.3Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it mostly restates the action enum from the schema and only promises a confirmation message. It does not disclose permission needs, idempotency, partial-vs-full update semantics, failure behavior, or irreversible delete side effects beyond the word 'delete.'

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 summary line is front-loaded and immediately followed by a compact, well-organized Args/Returns block. Each line covers one parameter or the return value, with no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description is largely sufficient for correct invocation: action requirements, parameter semantics, and return format are all covered. It is incomplete only in minor but useful respects—it does not mention how to obtain a label_id via list_gmail_labels, authentication prerequisites, or edge-case/error behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Every parameter is documented with its meaning and conditional requirements, such as 'name ... Required for create' and 'label_id ... Required for update and delete operations.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the missing structured descriptions and adds helpful conditional logic.

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 states 'Manages Gmail labels: create, update, or delete labels,' naming the resource and the specific actions it performs. This clearly differentiates it from read-only label tools like list_gmail_labels and from manage_gmail_filter, which handles filters.

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 action enum and conditional parameter requirements give clear context for when the tool is appropriate: creating, updating, or deleting Gmail labels. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as list_gmail_labels for retrieving label IDs, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

Deploy Server