email

Get conversation

getConversation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full conversation an inbound email belongs to as ordered, chat-model-ready turns with bodies. Each message is oldest-first with a direction (inbound/outbound) and a derived role (inbound→user, outbound→assistant). For a brand-new message, returns just that one turn. The response includes a truncated boolean (true when the message cap was reached) and a message_count field.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID of any inbound email in the conversation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`statusText`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant detail beyond annotations: ordered turns, direction/role derivation, truncated boolean, message_count field, and behavior for brand-new messages. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description is consistent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important edge-case and output details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter input and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the output structure and key behaviors. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or message cap value, but overall complete.

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?

The input schema has full coverage (100%) for a single parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds slight extra context (oldest-first ordering, role derivation) but does not significantly expand on the schema.

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 retrieves the full conversation for an inbound email, ordered as chat-model-ready turns with direction and role. It is specific about the resource and verb, and distinguishes from siblings like getEmail and getThread by focusing on the full conversation.

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?

The description implies usage context, such as returning a single turn for a new message, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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

All email tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: domain management (addDomain, verifyDomain), sending (sendEmail, replyToEmail), receiving (getEmail, listEmails), webhooks (createEndpoint, listWebhookDeliveries), status (getAccount, getInboxStatus), etc. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as listDomains, createFilter, downloadEmailAttachments, and getSentEmail. The verbs (get, list, create, delete, send, reply, etc.) are used predictably, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

29 tools is slightly on the high side but still reasonable for an email server covering domains, sending, receiving, webhooks, filters, and status. Each tool serves a specific purpose and earns its place, though some consolidation might be possible.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core email workflows: domain setup (add, verify, list), sending/receiving, threading, webhook lifecycle, and filtering. Minor gaps exist, such as missing deleteDomain or updateEndpoint, but the surface is largely complete for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?