Read recent messages without marking them as read, optionally filtering by folder or unread status and capping results at 100.
Read most recent messages, without marking them read. Maximum 100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | INBOX | |
| unread_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is limited, and it still contributes two non-obvious facts: messages are not marked read (a side effect an agent would otherwise worry about) and results are capped at 100. Sorting order and pagination behavior are left unstated.
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?
Three short clauses, none wasted, with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect caveat immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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?
Because an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, and the non-marking-read guarantee covers the main behavioral risk of a read tool. However, with three wholly undocumented parameters the description is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently without opening the 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?
All three parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: "Maximum 100" hints at the limit ceiling but never mentions the folder or unread_only parameters. An agent gets no help understanding what folder defaults to INBOX or what unread_only toggles.
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?
"Read most recent messages" states a specific verb and resource with a recency scope, which is enough to separate it from get_email and search_emails. It stops short of naming any sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary from the word "recent" alone.
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 word "recent" and the cap of 100 imply a browse-the-inbox use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_emails or get_email and no exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.