Retrieve forwarded emails with optional filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of emails to return | |
| since | No | Filter emails since this date (ISO string) | |
| threadId | No | Filter by conversation thread ID | |
| originalSender | No | Filter by original sender 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain return format, pagination, sorting, authentication needs, or any side effects. The word 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated beyond the action itself.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and mentions filtering in a compact way, though it is terse and lacks detail.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what constitutes a 'forwarded email', what the response looks like, or how filtering behaves. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional parameters), more context is needed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by noting 'optional filtering', but does not elaborate on how the parameters interact or provide examples. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter meaning.
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 action ('Retrieve forwarded emails') and mentions optional filtering, which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like read_inbox or get_threads_for_sender, leaving some ambiguity about when to use it.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'Retrieve forwarded emails with optional filtering' and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
