Sickle — every mailbox for your agent

Read email summary

read_email

Read-only

Read one email's envelope (subject, from, to, date), its flags and read state, a short preview of its text, and the files attached to it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uid`	Yes	Email UID, as returned by list_emails or search_emails
`email`	Yes	The email account address
`mailbox`	Yes	Mailbox/folder the UID belongs to, e.g. "INBOX"

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Who it was addressed to.
`uid`	Yes	Its UID within `mailbox`.
`date`	No	The Date header, as the sender's client wrote it.
`from`	Yes	Who sent it.
`flags`	No	IMAP flags on the email, e.g. "\\Seen", "\\Flagged", "\\Answered".
`unread`	No	true if nobody has opened it yet. Absent when the server reported no flags.
`mailbox`	Yes	The folder the email is in.
`preview`	No	The start of the body. Call read_email_body for all of it.
`subject`	No	Subject line.
`received`	No	When the server received it, "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM".
`attachments`	Yes	Files attached to it. stage_attachment_from_email takes one by its `part` to attach it to a draft.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026

addedOutput schema / $defs / EmailAttachment

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A file attached to an email.",
+  "properties": {
+    "filename": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "inline": {
+      "description": "true for an image shown inside the email's text rather than sent as a file.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "mime_type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "part": {
+      "description": "Which part of the email it is, e.g. \"2\" or \"3.2\".",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "size": {
+      "description": "Size in bytes, approximate.",
+      "format": "uint64",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "part",
+    "filename",
+    "mime_type",
+    "size",
+    "inline"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / attachments

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Files attached to it. stage_attachment_from_email takes one by its `part` to attach it to\na draft.",
+  "items": {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/EmailAttachment"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "mailbox",
-  "uid",
-  "from",
-  "to"
-]New value: +[
+  "mailbox",
+  "uid",
+  "from",
+  "to",
+  "attachments"
+]

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the returned surface (envelope, flags/read state, truncated 'short preview', attachment list). It does not say whether reading alters the read flag or how long the preview is, which is the one behavioral gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence that leads with the verb and then the payload; no filler and no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document return structure, and three fully-described parameters leave little ambiguity. The only missing context is the read-state side effect and preview truncation limits, which matter for an agent deciding between this and read_email_body.

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% and the schema already explains uid provenance ('as returned by list_emails or search_emails'), email account address, and mailbox format. The description adds nothing parameter-specific 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?

Specific verb 'Read' plus a precise enumeration of what is returned: envelope fields, flags, read state, a text preview, and attached files. An agent can tell this is the lightweight metadata/preview read rather than a full-body read, though the sibling read_email_body is never named as the contrast.

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 is only implied by the phrase 'short preview' versus the existence of read_email_body; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over the body-reading sibling or over list_emails/search_emails. An agent must infer the routing decision from the sibling list.

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

All Sickle — every mailbox for your agent 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.

Resources

Need Help?