Search Gmail messages across one or all accounts using Gmail query syntax, such as 'from:bob is:unread', to find matching emails and identify their source account.
Search messages using Gmail search syntax (e.g. 'from:bob is:unread'). account is an email, alias or group;
omit it to search all accounts. Each result row has the account it came from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| max_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavior: the default scope spans all accounts, and each row reports its source account. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or truncation behavior of max_results.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and query dialect, then scope, then return shape. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers query syntax, account scope, and result shape — the essentials. The undocumented `max_results` semantics and the absence of any output-shape details beyond the account field leave visible gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does a good job on `account` (email, alias, or group; null means all) and on `query` (Gmail syntax with an example), but says nothing about `max_results` or its default of 10.
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?
States a specific verb (search) plus the resource (messages/emails) and names the query dialect (Gmail search syntax with an inline example), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_thread or list_drafts, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
Gives one concrete usage rule — omit `account` to search across all accounts — which is genuinely actionable. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_thread or list_drafts, and no exclusions or alternatives, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.