Retrieve emails received within a specified number of days (default 3) with an optional count limit, enabling quick access to recent messages across supported providers.
获取最近三天的邮件列表
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | 获取最近几天的邮件（默认3天） | |
| limit | No | 返回邮件数量限制（默认20） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but it only restates the basic retrieve action. It does not disclose whether emails are marked as read, whether an account must already be configured, what the returned list contains, or any error/rate-limit behavior.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list-retrieval tool, though it could include one phrase distinguishing it from get_email_content without becoming verbose.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a sibling setup_email_account that hints at prerequisites, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the returned email list looks like, that an account setup may be required, or how the days/limit parameters affect results beyond schema defaults.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no real parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only implies the default window, which the days parameter already documents with '默认3天'.
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 '获取最近三天的邮件列表' clearly states the action (get) and resource (email list), which distinguishes it from siblings like send_email (sends) and get_email_content (retrieves one email's content). It loses a point because it hard-codes 'three days' while the days parameter allows customization, making the stated scope slightly narrower than actual behavior.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that get_email_content is for reading a specific email's details, or that setup_email_account is a prerequisite. The agent must infer usage from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.