searchRetrieve email matches from all configured accounts and non-trash mailboxes. Use a simple read-only query to get standard id, title, and URL results for quick triage.
Use this for a simple read-only search across all configured accounts and non-trash mailboxes. Returns standard id, title, and URL search results; use mail_search for filters or account scoping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | 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/non-destructive; description reinforces as read-only. Adds that results include id, title, and URL, which helps set expectations without contradicting annotations.
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, directly on point, with no redundant words. Efficiently conveys scope, alternative, and output shape.
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?
Specifies global scope (all accounts, non-trash mailboxes), names sibling tool for alternative, and summarizes return fields. Lacks pagination or limit info but sufficient for a simple search tool given no output schema.
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 provides query string with min/max but no description; description only says 'simple search' and doesn't explain query syntax or semantics. Parameter name and context imply free-text term, but coverage is 0% and description does not compensate with examples or format details, so score is moderate.
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?
Clearly states it performs a search over email across all configured accounts and non-trash mailboxes. Explicitly distinguishes from mail_search via filter/account scoping, so purpose is unambiguous.
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 tells agent to use mail_search when filters or account scoping are needed, creating a clear boundary. Also indicates this is the simpler alternative for broad searches, so when-to-use is well specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.