Fetch one message with parsed text, HTML, and attachment download URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Mailbox bearer token (mi_live_...) returned when the inbox was purchased. Optional when the MCP request itself carries Authorization: Bearer. | |
| inbox_id | Yes | Inbox UUID. | |
| message_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool fetches a message and returns specific content, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authorization requirements beyond the token parameter, rate limits, or side effects. The description lacks essential transparency for a tool with no annotations.
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 a single sentence of 11 words, starting with the imperative verb 'Fetch'. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool's function. There is no redundancy or extraneous 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?
Given no output schema, the description lists key return elements (parsed text, HTML, attachment download URLs) but does not specify whether additional fields like sender or subject are included. It also fails to mention error conditions or how to use the download URLs. While the core functionality is communicated, gaps remain for a fully self-contained description.
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?
The schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (token and inbox_id), but message_id has no description. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond stating what the tool returns. It does not explain the purpose of message_id or elaborate on token usage, failing to compensate for the incomplete schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a single message and returns parsed text, HTML, and attachment download URLs. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_messages (which returns multiple) and get_inbox (which returns inbox metadata). The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'one message' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies this tool is for retrieving a single message's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as list_messages or get_inbox. No exclusions or context on when not to use it are provided. The usage context is clear but not compared to siblings.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: create vs. delete vs. get for inboxes and webhooks, list vs. get for messages, plus specific actions like extracting verification codes, replying, and retrieving service info. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_inbox, get_verification_code, set_webhook). The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire surface.
With 11 tools covering inbox lifecycle (create, read, delete), message retrieval and actions (list, get, reply, verification code), webhook management (set, get, delete), and service information, the count is well-scoped for a temporary email service.
The tool surface provides full CRUD for inboxes, message retrieval and reply, webhook management, and specialized operations like verification code extraction. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of managing disposable inboxes.
