Read all messages in a Gmail conversation thread, oldest first, to review the full context and history.
Read every message in a conversation thread, oldest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | ||
| thread_id | Yes | ||
| max_body_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that messages are returned 'oldest first', but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or the fact that message bodies may be truncated — despite a max_body_chars parameter existing.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and 'oldest first' is the kind of detail that earns its place. It is slightly under-specified rather than bloated, which is the safer failure mode.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a no-annotation tool with 0% parameter coverage and a truncating parameter, the description is too thin. Truncation behavior and read permissions are the notable omissions.
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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither 'account' nor 'thread_id' nor the meaningful 'max_body_chars' (default 8000, evidently a truncation control) is explained anywhere.
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 (Read) and resource (every message in a conversation thread) plus the ordering, so the scope is clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read_email (single message) and search_emails, but never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'every message in a conversation thread' suggests this is for whole-thread retrieval rather than a single message. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among read_email or search_emails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.