google-workspace-mcp-advanced

get_gmail_message_content

Retrieve the subject, sender, recipients, and plain text body of a specific Gmail message by providing its message ID and user email.

Instructions

Retrieves the full content (subject, sender, recipients, plain text body) of a specific Gmail message.

Args: message_id (str): The unique ID of the Gmail message to retrieve. user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required.

Returns: str: The message details including subject, sender, recipients (To, Cc), and body content.

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>",
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>"
    },
    "name": "get_gmail_message_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message_id`	Yes
`user_google_email`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.10Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions the returned fields but omits authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. Partial transparency.

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?

Two concise paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool, description covers purpose, parameters, and return. Lacks error scenarios and auth context, but overall sufficient given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

The Args section describes each parameter: message_id as 'The unique ID' and user_google_email as 'The user's Google email. Required.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only specification. Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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 'Retrieves the full content (subject, sender, recipients, plain text body) of a specific Gmail message,' specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like batch retrieval and thread retrieval by focusing on a single message's content.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gmail_messages_content_batch or get_gmail_thread_content. Usage is implied but lacks context for selection.

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

Deploy Server