Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get emails

get_emails
Read-only

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesList of email IDs from search_emails results (max 20). Pass the same on_behalf_of the search used.
on_behalf_ofNoA teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description
      Previous value: -"A teammate's email (one with conversation sharing turned on), or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."New value: +"A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / ids / description
      Previous value: -"List of email IDs from search_emails results (max 20)."New value: +"List of email IDs from search_emails results (max 20). Pass the same\non_behalf_of the search used."
    • changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description
      Previous value: -"Read a consented teammate's emails instead of your own — pass their email. Gated on that teammate's conversation-sharing setting; a teammate who hasn't shared is rejected. Pass the same email you used with search_emails. Or pass an agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run the call in that client's account, where none of the teammate limits above apply."New value: +"A teammate's email (one with conversation sharing turned on), or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / as_teammate
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Read a consented teammate's emails instead of your own — pass their email. Gated on that teammate's conversation-sharing setting; a teammate who hasn't shared is rejected. Pass the same email you used with search_emails."
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Read a consented teammate's emails instead of your own — pass their email. Gated on that teammate's conversation-sharing setting; a teammate who hasn't shared is rejected. Pass the same email you used with search_emails. Or pass an agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run the call in that client's account, where none of the teammate limits above apply."
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: returned content is truncated to 6000 chars and the response is a dict with count plus an emails array. The schema adds a max of 20 IDs and the on_behalf_of consistency requirement, which are not echoed in the description but are covered elsewhere.

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?

Two short labeled blocks — purpose and returns — with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence supplies information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape and the truncation behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs. Minor omissions remain, such as whether results are ordered or how partial-ID failures are reported.

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 itself documents the max-20 limit and the 'same on_behalf_of as the search' rule. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch full email content by ID') and explicitly positions itself relative to search_emails, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other email-related siblings without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use after search_emails to read emails that need closer inspection' gives a concrete trigger and names the prerequisite tool. It stops short of excluding the adjacent alternatives (get_email_attachment, read_email_attachment, list_inbox_conversations), so the agent must infer those boundaries.

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

All Sliq toolsInspect
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