gmail_list_labelsGet all your labels including system folders (INBOX, SENT, TRASH, DRAFTS) and custom labels. Returns label names and IDs for filtering or organizing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | Error code if connection not authenticated | |
| labels | No | Array of all labels | |
| message | No | Error message if connection not authenticated |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Error code if connection not authenticated",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "labels": {
+ "description": "Array of all labels",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Label ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "labelListVisibility": {
+ "description": "Label visibility in label list",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "messageCount": {
+ "description": "Number of messages with this label",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "messageListVisibility": {
+ "description": "Label visibility in message list",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Label name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "threadsUnread": {
+ "description": "Number of unread threads with this label",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Error message if connection not authenticated",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that system folders are included and the tool returns labels for identification. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence with two concise clauses that front-load the purpose and immediately detail output. No unnecessary 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?
Given no parameters and existence of an output schema, the description fully covers all aspects: purpose, content, output details, and usage context. Complete for a simple retrieval 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?
No parameters exist, so the description correctly provides no additional param info. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that without needing to elaborate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves all labels (system and custom) and specifies the output (names and IDs). It differentiates adequately from sibling tools like gmail_list_messages which list emails.
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?
The description indicates the tool is for 'filtering or organizing', providing a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, but given the no-parameter simplicity and distinct purpose, guidance is sufficient.
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.
There is significant overlap among tools, particularly within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the Polymarket family (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). These tools have similar purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish them at a glance. The Gmail tools are a small, distinct cluster, but the overall set is confusing.
All tool names use snake_case, but the verb_noun pattern is inconsistent. Many start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, etc.), but some use noun_verb (bet_research), noun_noun (entity_profile), or adjective_noun (deep_research). This mixed pattern reduces predictability.
With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Gmail' suggests a focused email service. Only 5 tools are Gmail-related, while the rest cover a vast, unrelated domain (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.). This mismatch makes the tool count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.
For the Gmail domain, the tool surface is incomplete (e.g., missing delete, archive, modify labels). For the broader Pipeworx/Polymarket domain, the tools are extensive but lack clarity in coverage. The server attempts to cover too many domains without sufficient depth in any, leading to notable gaps.