mail_getRetrieve a single email as sanitized plain text, including 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context beyond this by stating reading does not mark the email as read and that content is sanitized with attachment summaries. No contradictions.
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 sentences with no filler; the workflow hint and key side-effect are front-loaded before the notice about read state.
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 operation, the description covers invocation context, return nature (sanitized text + metadata + attachment summaries), and the notable side-effect absence. Annotations cover safety, and no output schema is needed for this level of complexity.
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%, but the sole id parameter is plausibly an email identifier and the phrase 'after search' implies it comes from search results. The description doesn't explicitly define id's origin or format, so it only partially compensates.
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 action ('read one email'), a resource (an email), and the output format (sanitized plain text with metadata and attachment summaries). This clearly differentiates from sibling search/list/thread 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?
Explicitly instructs to use after search, establishing the workflow context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings such as mail_get_thread or mail_attachment_read, so not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.