get_threadReads every message in a Gmail thread, oldest first, from a thread ID returned by search or email lookup, so agents can review full conversation context.
Read every message in a thread, oldest first, each in the same format as get_email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | Thread id, as returned by search_emails or get_email. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: deterministic oldest-first ordering, full-thread coverage ("every message"), and a per-message format identical to get_email, which lets an agent parse results without guessing.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with the ordering and format details packed in without waste. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 simple read-only, one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies what matters: ordering, completeness, and return format by reference to get_email. It does not address behavior on very large threads (truncation or limits), which is the only notable omission.
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 coverage is 100% and the single thread_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its pattern and where the id comes from. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema already does that work.
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?
"Read every message in a thread" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (thread), and adds scope (all messages) and ordering (oldest first). It implicitly contrasts with get_email by pointing to that tool's format, though it never names search_emails as the tool for finding a thread id.
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?
Usage is implied: call it when you have a thread_id and want the whole conversation rather than a single message. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention that the thread_id comes from search_emails/get_email (that lives only in the schema), and no stated alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.