Get conversation threads with forwarded emails
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of threads to return | |
| since | No | Filter threads active since this date (ISO string) | |
| subject | No | Filter threads by subject content | |
| participant | No | Filter threads by participant email address |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' which implies read-only, but it does not explain what is returned (e.g., whether forwarding emails are included in the thread), pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The minimal detail provides little transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence that clearly identifies the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 and no annotations, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not clarify the meaning of 'with forwarded emails', nor does it differentiate from related siblings like get_forwarded_emails. The agent would need to guess at the tool's exact behavior and return format.
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?
All four parameters (limit, since, subject, participant) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get conversation threads with forwarded emails' clearly states the operation (get) and resource (conversation threads), though 'with forwarded emails' is slightly ambiguous. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_threads_for_sender or get_conversation_context, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or differentiators, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
