Skip to main content
Glama
vcnngr

gwagent

by vcnngr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gmail_mark_unread

Marks Gmail conversations as unread by row index, search query, folder, subject match, or all results, so you can restore unread status after review.

Instructions

Mark conversations as unread (an open conversation is closed, as in the app).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoAct on EVERY conversation of the query/folder list (Gmail's 'Select all' after loading the whole list; repeated until the list is empty for actions that remove conversations from it). Needs query or folder; no index/indexes/match.
indexNoRow index from gmail.list / gmail.search (0 = first row).
matchNoSelect every row whose subject contains this text (case-insensitive).
queryNoRun this Gmail search first and take the rows from its results.
folderNoOpen this folder/label first and take the rows from it.
indexesNoSeveral row indexes (multi-selection).
max_rowsNoWith match, look at most at this many rows from the top.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden — but it does disclose one non-obvious UI side effect: an open conversation is closed, mirroring the app. It says nothing about behavior when the conversation is already unread, what 'all' does at scale, or whether the change is persisted server-side.

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?

One short sentence with the core action front-loaded and the side effect in parentheses. Efficient, though the parenthetical phrasing is slightly informal for a tool description.

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?

The selection model (index/match/query/folder/all) is complex but fully covered by the schema, and there is no output schema to explain. The description is adequate but omits selection defaults and how the tool responds when nothing is selected.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, including the constraint that 'all' needs query or folder. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Mark conversations as unread'. Clear enough to act on, but it never mentions the sibling gmail_mark_read, so an agent must infer the pairing from the name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus gmail_mark_read, gmail_important, or gmail_mute, and no prerequisites stated. The only context is implied by the name.

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