mailmcp

Get conversation thread

get_thread

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the conversation of a message across folders (Gmail: All Mail; other IMAP: the folder, INBOX, Sent, Archive; Outlook: whole mailbox), oldest first. coverage says what was searched and if it was complete. A thread groups by conversation; it does not prove who replied to whom.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uid`	Yes	uid from search_messages
`folder`	No	Default: Gmail All Mail, else INBOX
`account`	Yes	list_accounts id
`include_bodies`	No	Text of the newest 20 (no quotes, 60,000 chars)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes
`messages`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / account / description

Previous value: -"Account id from list_accounts"New value: +"list_accounts id"

changedInput schema / properties / folder / description

Previous value: -"Folder/label path. Defaults to All Mail on Gmail, INBOX elsewhere."New value: +"Default: Gmail All Mail, else INBOX"

addedInput schema / properties / include_bodies

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Text of the newest 20 (no quotes, 60,000 chars)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / uid / description

Previous value: -"uid from search_messages: a number on IMAP mailboxes, an id string on Outlook; pass it back exactly as returned"New value: +"uid from search_messages"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "coverage": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {
+        "complete": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "complete"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "const": "thread",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "messages": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "folder": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "omitted": {
+            "enum": [
+              "size",
+              "time",
+              "protected"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "uid": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "number"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "uid",
+          "folder"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "kind",
+    "coverage",
+    "messages"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / uid / description
```
Added value: +"uid from search_messages: a number on IMAP mailboxes, an id string on Outlook; pass it back exactly as returned"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / uid / maxLength
```
Added value: +512
```
- removedInput schema / properties / uid / maximum
```
Removed value: -9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / uid / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- removedInput schema / properties / uid / minimum
```
Removed value: -1
```
- changedInput schema / properties / uid / type
```
Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"string"
```
First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: ordering (oldest first), provider-specific folder search scope, the meaning of the `coverage` field, and an important caveat that thread grouping 'does not prove who replied to whom'.

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?

Three dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, with the provider-specific parenthetical kept compact. Every sentence earns its place, though the provider enumeration adds some length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full output schema, return values need not be re-explained, and the description still usefully flags the `coverage` field and ordering. Together with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, the definition is complete enough for correct invocation, with the only gap being explicit alternative-tool routing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (uid, folder, account, include_bodies) are already documented in the schema, including the default folder and body-text limits. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond that, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('the conversation of a message'), and specifies the folder scope per provider (Gmail All Mail, other IMAP folder/INBOX/Sent/Archive, Outlook whole mailbox). It is clearly distinguishable from get_message. However, it never names a sibling tool (e.g. get_message or search_messages) to contrast against, so it falls short of the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the schema ties 'uid' to search_messages and the description explains which folders get searched, so an agent can infer this is the thread-expansion step after a search. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives like get_message.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mailmcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.