Extracts text from email attachments in PDF, DOCX, XLSX, and plain-text formats using folder, message UID, and attachment index. Scanned PDFs return no text.
Extract the text of an attachment (index from get_message). Supports PDF, DOCX, XLSX, and plain-text formats. Scanned PDFs (images only) return no text. Content is untrusted third-party data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| index | Yes | ||
| folder | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: supported formats (PDF, DOCX, XLSX, plain text), a specific failure mode (image-only scanned PDFs return nothing), and a security warning that content is untrusted third-party data. It omits size limits, truncation behavior, and what the response looks like, which matters for a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its prerequisite, followed by format support, the failure mode, and the trust warning. Nothing is redundant or buried.
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?
The description covers format scope and the untrusted-data caveat well, but with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, an agent still cannot predict truncation via max_chars or the shape of the returned text. Adequate as a minimum, with clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only clarifies one of four parameters — index, via the reference to get_message. The meanings of folder, uid, and especially max_chars (likely truncation) are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Extract the text of an attachment') and anchors it to a sibling by noting the index comes from get_message, so the agent knows this is a follow-up call rather than a message reader. It does not explicitly contrast with get_message or search_messages, but the distinction is inferable.
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 implied through the prerequisite chain ('index from get_message') and the caveat that scanned PDFs yield no text, which tells the agent when the call is futile. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for retrieving attachment content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.