@achi/drive-mcp

search_mail

Search user's accessible emails by subject, sender, or snippet, with optional filters for mailbox (INBOX/SENT) and account. No password required.

Instructions

Search mail the user can read (subject/from/snippet). No passwords.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_mail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No
`limit`	No
`teamId`	No
`mailbox`	No	INBOX or SENT
`accountId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context: the search scope is limited to readable mail and it reassures that passwords are not included. However, it does not disclose pagination, return format, or authentication needs, leaving significant behavioral aspects unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that are immediately understandable. 'No passwords.' adds a safety note without unnecessary length. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without enough information to correctly invoke the tool. It does not explain parameter semantics, return structure, or edge cases. This is far from complete for a search tool with multiple filter options.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'mailbox' has a description). The description mentions subject/from/snippet, which are not parameter names, and does not explain q, limit, teamId, accountId, or how mailbox values behave beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('mail'), with clear scope ('the user can read') and fields ('subject/from/snippet'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like read_mail and the generic search tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear context ('search mail the user can read') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of sibling tools like read_mail, list_mail_accounts, or search. No exclusions or alternative references are included.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.