Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

by tszaks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

add_labels

Add labels to Gmail messages in one account using message IDs and label IDs.

Instructions

Add labels to messages in one account (account required).

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>",
      "message_ids": "<message_ids>",
      "label_ids": "<label_ids>"
    },
    "name": "add_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYesAccount id.
label_idsYesLabel IDs to add.
message_idsYesMessage IDs to update.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add labels to messages,' which implies modification but fails to disclose key behaviors such as whether labels are appended or replaced, idempotency, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and the key prerequisite. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning a high score for conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with straightforward parameters, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not explain label replacement semantics or outcome expectations, which an agent would need for accurate prediction. Without annotations, this is a noticeable gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'one account' scoping detail, which is minor and does not significantly enrich understanding 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('labels to messages'), and further clarifies scope ('one account'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_labels and create_label, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through its action-oriented wording and adds a prerequisite ('account required'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. This is adequate but minimal guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools