Multi Mail

Read a message

messages_get

Read-only

Read one message in a connected mailbox, with its headers and its body. A message whose recipients one answer cannot carry names the first that fit, omittedRecipients counting the rest.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The message's id, as a search or a thread read answered it, or a draft's own id.
`view`	No	full, the default, carries each message's text and attachments; summary leaves those out; headers leaves out the subject and snippet too.
`mailbox`	Yes	The mailbox's name or its email address.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	Yes
`id`	Yes
`to`	Yes
`bcc`	Yes
`body`	No
`date`	Yes
`from`	Yes
`link`	No
`draft`	Yes
`folder`	No
`unread`	Yes
`draftId`	Yes
`flagged`	No
`snippet`	No
`subject`	No
`labelIds`	Yes
`threadId`	Yes
`bodyFormat`	No
`categories`	No
`attachments`	No
`omittedCharacters`	No
`omittedRecipients`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 18, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / omittedRecipients
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "threadId",
-  "from",
-  "to",
-  "cc",
-  "bcc",
-  "date",
-  "draft",
-  "draftId",
-  "unread",
-  "labelIds",
-  "link"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "threadId",
+  "from",
+  "to",
+  "cc",
+  "bcc",
+  "date",
+  "draft",
+  "draftId",
+  "unread",
+  "labelIds"
+]

Changed16 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / bcc / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / bcc / type

Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / cc / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / cc / type

Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / date / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / date / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / draftId / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / draftId / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / from / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / from / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / snippet / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / snippet / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / subject / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / subject / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / to / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / to / type

Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world profile, so safety is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail about recipient truncation and the omittedRecipients count, but the phrasing is so muddled that the added value is partial.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second sentence is awkwardly constructed ('A message whose recipients one answer cannot carry names the first that fit') and consumes space without delivering a clear point.

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 covering return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition needs only to state what is read and how. That is largely done; the odd recipient/omittedRecipients sentence is a minor blemish rather than a missing element.

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 three parameters (id, view, mailbox) are already documented, including the view enum semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one message in a connected mailbox') plus scope ('with its headers and its body'). This clearly distinguishes it from messages_list and messages_list_all_mailboxes, though it does not explicitly name the nearest siblings (threads_get, messages_attachments_get).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as messages_list to obtain ids. The only usage-adjacent content is the garbled recipient sentence, which does not help an agent decide when this tool applies.

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

All Multi Mail 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.