Gmail AI Agent MCP Server

get_emails

Retrieve emails from your Gmail inbox using optional search queries, label filters, and a configurable maximum number of results.

Instructions

Get emails from inbox

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Gmail search query to filter emails
`labelIds`	No	Array of label IDs to filter by
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of emails to retrieve (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get emails from inbox' but does not clarify that this is a read-only operation, whether it fetches only basic fields or full email bodies, or any rate limits or auth requirements. It fails to convey the tool's safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at five words, fitting in one short sentence. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given that the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., list of email objects), pagination behavior, or default order. The agent lacks context to effectively use the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already contains adequate descriptions for all three parameters (query, labelIds, maxResults).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get emails from inbox' is clear in stating the tool retrieves emails. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'get_email' (which likely retrieves a single email) or 'search_emails' (which may have different parameters). A more specific description like 'Get list of emails matching query from inbox' would improve differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_emails' or 'get_email'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., being connected to Gmail), limitations, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server