Fetch the full email thread by thread ID and return the complete conversation for display in the composer's thread panel.
Fetch the full thread for display in the composer's thread panel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | ||
| thread_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | No | ||
| messages | Yes | ||
| thread_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the tool fetches the thread but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'full thread.' The behavioral context is minimal.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it is somewhat under-specified for the required detail, but not verbose.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema and two parameters, the description omits essential context like expected input format for thread_id, behavior when user_id is not provided, and whether the thread must already be loaded. Incomplete for effective invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain either parameter (user_id or thread_id). It adds no meaning beyond the schema structure, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool fetches the full thread for display in the composer's thread panel, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the generic gmail_get_thread sibling by adding the composer context.
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 implies the tool is for displaying a thread in the composer panel but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like gmail_get_thread or any prerequisites. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.