mail_readRetrieves full email content as plain text, including sender and recipient names, for specified mail IDs and an optional character.
Full text of one or more mails (HTML converted to plain text) with sender and recipient names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mail_ids | Yes | ||
| character | No | Character name or id to act as. Defaults to the active character (see characters_list / character_select). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that HTML is converted to plain text and that sender/recipient names accompany the body, but says nothing about the 10-mail batch ceiling, partial failures on invalid ids, or whether inaccessible mails are omitted.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the return payload and the HTML-to-text behavior. Nothing is padded, though a fragment rather than a verb-led statement makes it slightly less directive than it could be.
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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (full body, sender, recipients). The main gap is the batch-size limit and the exact response shape per mail, but the annotations and simple schema mean little else is needed.
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 coverage is only 50%: the character parameter is documented but mail_ids is bare. The phrase 'one or more mails' hints at the array/batch nature, yet the description does not disclose the max of 10 ids or that ids should come from mail_list, so it only marginally compensates.
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 names the specific resource (mails) and scope (full text, one or more, with sender/recipient names), which clearly distinguishes it from the listing sibling mail_list and the write sibling mail_send. It never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous.
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: fetching full bodies by mail id after using mail_list. The description names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition, leaving the agent to infer the mail_list → mail_read workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.