mcp-template

gmail_get_thread

Fetch a Gmail thread by id to retrieve full message bodies; omit attachment bytes by default and remove quoted replies on request.

Instructions

Fetch a Gmail thread by id with full message bodies. By default attachment/inline-image bytes are omitted (each attachment still carries filename, mime_type, size, attachment_id) to keep the payload small - fetch a file on demand with gmail_get_attachment. Pass include_attachment_data=true to inline bytes, or strip_quoted_replies=true to drop repeated quoted history. When an interactive UI is rendered alongside the result, keep your text response brief since the user can browse the conversation in the UI.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_id`	No
`thread_id`	Yes
`strip_quoted_replies`	No
`include_attachment_data`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft`	No
`messages`	Yes
`thread_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses key behaviors: attachment bytes omitted by default, metadata retained, options to include data or strip quotes. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; could mention rate limits or auth requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, concise and front-loaded with core action. The UI note is mildly tangential but still useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequately covers retrieval logic and optional behaviors for a tool with output schema. No critical gaps for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Explains thread_id (implied), include_attachment_data, and strip_quoted_replies with added context. Does not mention user_id. Given 0% schema coverage, description adds significant meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches a Gmail thread by ID with full message bodies, using a specific verb and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides guidance on default behavior (omitting attachments) and when to use optional parameters. Differentiates from gmail_get_attachment for fetching files, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server