Move an email to a specified folder or label by UID, helping organize messages into destinations like Trash, Spam, or Archive.
Belirtilen e-postayı (UID) hedef klasöre veya etikete taşır.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | Taşınacak e-postanın UID numarası | |
| sourceFolder | No | E-postanın bulunduğu kaynak klasör (Varsayılan: 'INBOX') | INBOX |
| destinationFolder | Yes | Hedef klasör adı (örn: '[Gmail]/Trash', '[Gmail]/Spam', 'Arşiv', vb.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the email is moved but does not disclose side effects such as removal from the source folder, label-versus-folder behavior, whether the destination must already exist, or what the tool returns. This is thin disclosure for a mutating operation.
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?
One clean, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the action, object, and destination. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.
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?
The description is minimally viable for a simple move operation with full schema coverage of parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or the consequences of moving to a label versus a folder, leaving notable gaps.
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?
The input schema already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small nuance by mentioning 'label' as a possible destination, which the schema does not explicitly state, but it offers no other parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('taşır' – moves) and clearly identifies the resource (email by UID) and destination (folder or label). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_email, flag_email, and send_email without requiring schema inspection.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites stated (e.g., source folder state, destination folder existence). The only context is the implied action of moving an email, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.