Opens Gmail directly to a specified folder or label, such as Inbox, Sent, or a custom label, so agents can navigate to the needed mailbox view.
Open Gmail on a folder or label (Inbox, Starred, Sent, Drafts, All mail, Spam, Trash, a user label...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | Folder or label name as shown in the Gmail drawer (case-insensitive). 'inbox' opens the inbox (its 'Primary' tab when inbox categories are on). | inbox |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Open' implies navigation but the description never says whether this launches the app, whether it is a safe read-only view change, or what happens on success; for a UI-mutating navigation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource immediately with a compact enumeration of values. No wasted text, though the trailing ellipsis list is slightly loose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and valid values, but omits behavior on success or whether Gmail must already be running. Adequate but with clear gaps given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single folder parameter including the default and 'Primary' tab behavior. The description adds a list of example folder names, which is useful but largely redundant with the schema's own detail; baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Open) plus resource (Gmail) and scope (folder or label), with concrete example values (Inbox, Starred, Sent, etc.). An agent can tell this navigates to a folder view, distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like gmail_folders, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the enumerated folder values, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as gmail_folders for listing labels or gmail_list for messages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.