Fetch emails from any folder with pagination and multi-account support. Returns subject, sender, date, and flags to help you manage your inbox efficiently.
List emails in a folder. Returns envelope data: subject, from, date, flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| folder | No | Folder name (default: INBOX) | |
| account | No | Account name (uses default if omitted) | |
| page_size | No | Number of emails to return (default: 25) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool lists emails and returns envelope data, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or folder existence handling. The behavior is adequately described for a simple read operation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return data. No wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return data but lacks details on pagination behavior, sorting, or default folder. With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete.
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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like page_size or page affect results. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'List emails in a folder' (specific verb+resource) and specifies the returned data ('subject, from, date, flags'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_emails' or 'list_threads'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many email-related sibling tools (e.g., search_emails, list_threads), usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.