Set or clear a triage LABEL on an inbox thread — the same chip the dashboard shows. Inputs: threadId, label (string; pass label:null to clear). Distinct from mark (read/unread/archived state): a label is a free-form category, not a read flag. Filterable via inbox's label param.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| threadId | Yes | The thread id, e.g. from inbox() or campaign events. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=false; description adds that labels are free-form categories and explains clearing via null, providing context beyond annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with primary action, no wasted words.
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?
Covers core functionality, parameter behavior, and sibling distinction. Lacks mention of potential errors or permissions, but sufficient for this simple tool.
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?
Description adds meaning to both parameters: threadId context from inbox/campaign, label behavior including null to clear, and visual reference to dashboard chip. Schema coverage is 50% but description compensates fully.
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?
Description clearly states 'Set or clear a triage LABEL on an inbox thread' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'mark' tool.
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?
Explicitly contrasts with 'mark' tool and mentions filterability via inbox label param, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but pause/pause_all and metrics/campaign_results/list_campaigns have overlapping scopes. Descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is low.
Uses snake_case with a mix of verb_noun (list_campaigns) and noun_verb (infrastructure_status), but patterns are predictable. Minor inconsistency between setup_infrastructure and infrastructure_status.
25 tools is at the upper bound for a focused server, but the domain (cold email automation) justifies the number. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow.
Covers account management, campaigns, leads, threads, infrastructure, webhooks, and dashboards. Missing resume for paused campaigns and delete for campaigns, but core operations are present.