Fetch a single Gmail inbox thread by thread_id to let an inbox reader app load and display the full conversation.
Fetch a single thread for the inbox reader app.
| 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 disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'fetch', implying read-only, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects.
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 sentence with no waste, but it is too brief to be adequately informative. It does not front-load critical context.
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 lack of annotations and parameter explanations, the description is far from complete. It does not cover return values, usage context, or differentiation from similar sibling tools.
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%; the description does not mention 'thread_id' or 'user_id', adding no meaning beyond the raw schema. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema explanations.
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 'Fetch a single thread', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'gmail_get_thread' which likely performs a similar function.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gmail_get_thread' or 'gmail_inbox.reply'. No usage context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.