get_emails| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | List of email IDs from search_emails results (max 20). Pass the same on_behalf_of the search used. | |
| on_behalf_of | No | 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / ids / descriptionPrevious 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."Input schema / properties / on_behalf_of / descriptionPrevious 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."Input schema / properties / as_teammateRemoved 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."
-}Input schema / properties / on_behalf_ofAdded 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."
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by describing the return shape and the 6000-char content truncation, which the agent could not infer from the schema. It omits batch-failure or rate-limit behavior.
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?
Two short, front-loaded statements with a dedicated returns block and zero filler. Every sentence carries actionable information.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, sequencing, and return shape/truncation, which is nearly everything needed. Minor gaps like how partial ID failures are reported keep it from a 5.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both ids (max 20, must match the search's on_behalf_of) and on_behalf_of documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch full email content by ID') and explicitly positions it relative to search_emails, so an agent can distinguish the read-after-search tool from the search tool itself.
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?
Explicitly says to use it after search_emails to read emails needing closer inspection, giving a clear invocation context. It does not state a when-not condition or name other alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.
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.