Search Gmail messages with advanced query syntax to locate emails by sender, subject, date, or other filters; set the maximum number of results returned.
Search Gmail using advanced query syntax (same as Gmail search bar)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Gmail search query (e.g., 'from:boss@company.com subject:urgent after:2025/01/01') | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about this being a read-only, non-mutating operation, whether results are paginated, how maxResults caps the return set, or what a result record contains. For a search tool with zero structured behavioral metadata, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but there is no wasted language.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the basics are covered, but the definition omits the read-only nature, result shape, pagination, and how it relates to gmail_read — information an agent needs to pick and call it confidently.
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 100% and the query parameter already carries an example with from/subject/after operators, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's reference to 'advanced query syntax (same as Gmail search bar)' adds a modest pointer but nothing about supported operators, quoting, or maxResults behavior.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search Gmail') and points to the Gmail query language, so the purpose is immediately legible. It stops short of differentiating this from the sibling tool gmail_read, which also reads mail, leaving the agent to infer that one is query-based and the other is message-specific.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this instead of gmail_read, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only hint ('same as Gmail search bar') concerns syntax, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.