gmail

get_email

Read-only

Retrieve the complete content of a specific email using its ID from search_email. Use this to read the full email body (text or HTML), see all recipients (to, cc, bcc), and access the complete headers. This is necessary after search_email since search only returns snippets, not the actual email content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`emailId`	Yes	Email ID from search_email results

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No
`id`	Yes
`to`	No
`bcc`	No
`body`	Yes
`date`	No
`from`	No
`labels`	Yes
`snippet`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`threadId`	Yes
`attachments`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedApr 7, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed1 schema field changedFeb 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "attachments": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "attachmentId": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "filename": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "mimeType": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "size": {
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "filename",
+          "mimeType",
+          "size",
+          "attachmentId"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "bcc": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "body": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "html": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "text": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "cc": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "date": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "from": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "labels": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "snippet": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "subject": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "threadId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "to": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "threadId",
+    "subject",
+    "body",
+    "attachments",
+    "labels",
+    "snippet"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJan 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about what content is retrieved (full body, all recipients, headers) and the prerequisite relationship with search_email. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential errors beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the workflow relationship with search_email. Every phrase adds value and is appropriately front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides complete contextual information. It explains the purpose, usage guidelines, and relationship with search_email adequately for this level of complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single required parameter 'emailId' as 'Email ID from search_email results'. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'using its ID from search_email' but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'read', 'see', 'access') and resources ('complete content of a specific email', 'full email body', 'all recipients', 'complete headers'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'search_email' by explaining that search only returns snippets while this retrieves the actual content.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('after search_email since search only returns snippets, not the actual email content') and names the alternative ('search_email'). It clearly establishes the workflow relationship between these two tools.

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

All gmail 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.