Get the full content of an email, including body, headers, and attachments, by providing the email ID.
Read the full content of a specific email including body, headers, and attachments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| email_id | Yes | The email ID to read |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that reading is non-destructive, requires authentication, or what happens on missing email IDs. The statement is too brief.
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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.
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 and no annotations, the description should elaborate on return values (e.g., structure of body, headers, attachments) and error conditions. It does not, leaving important gaps.
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% for the single parameter, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'the email ID to read'. It does not explain format or origin of the ID.
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 states that the tool reads a specific email's full content including body, headers, and attachments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_inboxes or create_inbox.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not clarify how read_email differs from get_inbox or when to prefer one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.