Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

create_label

Create a new Gmail label in a specific account to organize emails efficiently. Provide account ID and label name; optionally set visibility options.

Instructions

Create a new Gmail label 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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Label name.
`account`	Yes	Account id.
`label_list_visibility`	No	Gmail labelListVisibility value (default: labelShow).	labelShow
`message_list_visibility`	No	Gmail messageListVisibility value (default: show).	show

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.2Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create' and gives no information about permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or effects beyond creation. 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 sentence, concise and to the point. The parenthetical '(account required)' is slightly redundant with the schema, but it does not waste much space. It earns its place by reinforcing a key requirement.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks context about return values, naming constraints, or behavior on duplicate labels. The schema covers params but not operational context.

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 input schema fully describes all four parameters with names, defaults, and descriptions (100% coverage). The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool creates a new Gmail label in a specific account, using a specific verb ('create') and resource ('label'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_label and get_labels.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The 'account required' note is a prerequisite, not a usage recommendation. No mention of get_labels for listing or delete_label for removal.

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

Deploy Server