Retrieve a complete Gmail thread by ID to read the entire conversation in order. Use it when you need full context instead of fetching messages one by one.
A whole conversation in order. Prefer this over fetching messages one by one when you need context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the operation's safety profile. The description adds that the output is the full conversation in order, which is useful, but it does not disclose details like pagination, response format, or how ordering is determined.
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?
The description is very concise and front-loads the core behavior, with usage guidance in the second sentence. Each sentence contributes value, though the first sentence is a noun fragment rather than a complete verb phrase.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description provides good use-case context but misses critical parameter semantics. Without clarifying that 'id' is a thread identifier, an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool, and the absence of an output schema makes the description the only source for understanding return behavior.
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?
The only parameter, 'id,' has no schema description and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description never explains that 'id' refers to a thread ID or what format it should take, leaving the agent to infer the meaning from the tool name alone.
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 clearly indicates that the tool returns 'a whole conversation in order,' which identifies the resource and the result. It also distinguishes itself from fetching individual messages, which differentiates it from gmail_get_message, though it lacks a direct verb like 'retrieves.'
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?
The description explicitly says to prefer this tool over fetching messages one by one when context is needed, giving a clear usage condition and naming the alternative behavior. It does not specify when the single-message tool should be used instead, so it is not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.