get_emails| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | List of email IDs from search_emails results (max 20). | |
| as_teammate | No | 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description usefully discloses the return shape (dict with count and emails array) and the 6000-character truncation, which annotations cannot convey. It doesn't detail failure behavior or consent-gated teammate rejection, but readOnlyHint covers side-effect safety and the schema already documents the consent rule.
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?
The description is compact and well-structured with summary and returns sections. It front-loads the core action and includes only essential workflow and return information, with no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description provides the return contract (count and truncated emails array) instead of leaving the agent to guess. Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage and readOnlyHint, the tool is fully actionable.
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 coverage is 100%, so both ids and as_teammate are fully documented in the schema, including the max 20 limit and consent gating. The description's 'by ID / after search_emails' context adds only a high-level workflow cue, not deeper parameter semantics.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch full email content by ID') and clearly positions it as the follow-up to search_emails. This differentiates it from sibling search and attachment tools well enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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?
It explicitly says to use this tool after search_emails and when closer inspection is needed, which gives the agent a clear invocation path. This effectively communicates when this tool is appropriate versus relying on search results alone.
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.