Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-nice-mcp

google-nice-mcp

by Schneckenhausmann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gmail_read_email

Retrieve full email content including headers, plain-text body, and attachment names using a message ID obtained from a previous search.

Instructions

Read one full email by its id (from gmail_search).

Returns headers, the plain-text body, and the names of any attachments.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_read_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the return contents but does not mention side effects, error handling, or permissions. For a read operation, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the core functionality and return value. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given a single parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description explains the return structure. It lacks details on potential errors or limitations but covers the essential information for a simple read tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one parameter (message_id) exists, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds context that the id comes from gmail_search, but does not specify format or constraints, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 reads a full email by its id, specifying what is returned (headers, body, attachment names). It also mentions the id comes from gmail_search, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

The description implies using gmail_search first to obtain the message_id, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools