Read a specific email message by UID from a folder, returning headers, body, and attachments without marking it as read. Use it to inspect message content.
Read one message, returning headers/body/attachments without marking it read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| folder | No | INBOX | |
| max_chars | No | ||
| include_html | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the message is not marked read. However, it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid uid, folder resolution, or how max_chars truncation works, leaving real gaps for a read tool.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and folds in the return content and the key non-destructive guarantee with zero waste.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the tool takes four undocumented parameters with 0% schema coverage and has no annotations, so the description should compensate for folder defaults, truncation via max_chars, and include_html behavior. It does not, so an agent lacks what it needs for anything beyond the default call.
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 0% and the description never references any of the four parameters (uid, folder, max_chars, include_html). 'headers/body/attachments' weakly hints at content selection but provides no meaning about defaults or how include_html/max_chars shape the result.
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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one message'), and the list of returned content (headers/body/attachments) pins down what the operation yields. The singular 'one message' implicitly separates it from list_messages/search_messages, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as search_messages or list_messages. Usage for a single-message read is only faintly implied by 'one message', so an agent gets almost no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.