Read a single Gmail message to retrieve headers, text body, and attachment list without marking it as read unless mark_read is true.
Read one email: headers, text body and attachment list. Does not mark it as read unless mark_read is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Message id from gmail_search / gmail_list_drafts | |
| mark_read | No | ||
| max_chars | No | Truncate the body (default 20000) |
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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a valuable non-obvious behavioral detail: the operation does not mark the message as read unless mark_read is true, which is exactly the kind of side-effect nuance annotations cannot express.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what it does and followed by the one non-obvious side effect. No filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return shape (headers, body, attachment list), and annotations cover safety. It omits mention of body truncation/max_chars, but the schema documents that default, so nothing critical is missing.
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 67%; id and max_chars are documented in the schema but mark_read has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining mark_read's exact effect, closing the gap for the one undocumented parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read one email') and enumerates the return contents (headers, text body, attachment list). It is clearly distinct from write siblings like gmail_send_email or gmail_modify, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling gmail_get_thread.
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?
The description implies a single-message read but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as gmail_get_thread or gmail_get_attachment. Usage must be inferred from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.