Fetch a complete email message by its ID, including headers, body, and attachments. Optionally specify a folder to locate the message.
Přečte jednu zprávu (hlavička + tělo + přílohy). ID zprávy ze seznamu; složka volitelně (id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| slozka | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what is read (header, body, attachments), but it does not explicitly confirm absence of side effects or mention whether reading marks the message as read. The verb 'Přečte' implies a read-only operation, yet some uncertainty remains.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no redundant wording. Essential purpose and parameter guidance are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 two-parameter read operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main points: what is read, where the ID comes from, and the optional folder. Minor gaps like folder ID syntax or error behavior are not critical for this low-complexity tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'id' is explained as the message ID from a list, and 'slozka' is described as an optional folder identifier, adding meaning beyond the bare property names.
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 opens with a clear verb ('Přečte') and a specific resource ('jednu zprávu'), and further specifies scope as header, body, and attachments. It also states the ID comes from a list, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like posta_seznam and posta_slozky.
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?
It gives actionable usage context: the message ID must come from a list and the folder is optional. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the provided precondition is sufficient for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.