MCP Emails

Get Signature

signature_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the email signature and sender display name configured for an inbox. Returns signature HTML, plain text, enablement status, reply/forward mode, and source.

Instructions

Read the email signature configured for an inbox. Returns the signature HTML and plain text, whether it is enabled, the reply/forward mode ('always' | 'first_only' | 'never'), its source ('manual', 'gmail_import', or null when none is set), and sender_name, the display name recipients see in the From header (null when unset). The signature is appended server-side on send/reply/forward/draft/scheduled messages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inbox`	No	Inbox email address, an alternative to inbox_id.
`inbox_id`	No	Inbox UUID from inbox_list. Optional when the key has one inbox; pass this or `inbox`, not both.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Server notes about how this call was handled — for example an argument that was not applied because the selected action does not accept it. Written by MCP Emails, not taken from any message, and absent when there is nothing to report.
`inbox_id`	No
`sender_name`	No
`email_address`	No
`signature_enabled`	No
`signature_reply_mode`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the signature is appended server-side on send/reply/forward/draft/scheduled messages, and by enumerating the returned fields and their null semantics.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second details the return contents and the server-side behavior without redundancy.

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?

For a read-only tool with zero required parameters, an output schema, and full parameter schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the meaning of key fields, and the behavioral context around server-side signature insertion.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read the email signature configured for an inbox.' It clearly distinguishes this read operation from the sibling signature_set tool, and the opening sentence is immediately informative.

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 makes the read-only context clear: it is for retrieving an inbox's configured signature. It does not explicitly name signature_set as the alternative for modifying signatures, but the contrast is strongly implied by the wording and sibling list.

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