Stores the currently viewed email thread, letting the inbox UI track which conversation the user is focused on.
Store which thread the user is currently viewing (called by inbox UI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from_ | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| messages | No | ||
| thread_id | No | ||
| message_count | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It hints at a write operation ('store') but lacks details on persistence, side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence is concise, but lacks structure such as a summary or bullet points. Could be more informative without added length.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide essential usage context, parameter meanings, or behavioral cues. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
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%. Description provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (e.g., from_, subject, messages, etc.), leaving agents without guidance.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'store' and resource 'which thread the user is currently viewing', distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_inbox.open_thread and gmail_get_focused_email. The mention 'called by inbox UI' provides 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states it's called by the inbox UI, but does not specify conditions for selection or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.