fetchRead an email by its ID, returning sanitized plain text, safe metadata, and attachment summaries without marking it as read.
Use this after search to read one email as sanitized plain text with safe metadata and attachment summaries. Reading does not mark it as read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns sanitized plain text, includes safe metadata and attachment summaries, and does not mark the email as read. These details supplement the readOnly and idempotent hints and help the agent understand side effects and output characteristics.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the usage context ('Use this after search'), states the core action, and adds the most important behavioral caveat about not marking the email as read.
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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the output format, the lack of side effects, and the intended workflow. The main gap is the under-explained 'id' parameter, but the overall context is sufficient for a straightforward fetch operation.
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?
The schema provides no description for the 'id' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'read one email' but does not clarify that the id should be an email id from a prior search or how to obtain a valid id. Since the description must compensate for the low schema coverage but does not, the parameter semantics are under-specified.
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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('one email'), and specifies the output as sanitized plain text with safe metadata and attachment summaries. It also explicitly clarifies that reading does not mark the email as read, which distinguishes this tool's behavior from other email-reading tools.
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 explicitly says 'Use this after search,' providing clear contextual guidance for when the tool should be invoked. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended workflow is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately among its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.