Skip to main content
Glama

follow_ups

Read-only

Identify Gmail threads waiting on your reply and threads where you're waiting on someone else, so you can nudge others or respond.

Instructions

Who is waiting on whom. waitingOnThem: threads whose LAST message is yours (SENT) and has had no answer for at least nudgeAfterDays — candidates for a nudge; a note to yourself (every To and Cc address is the account's own primary address, in any spelling Gmail delivers to it: +tags, dots, googlemail.com) is left out; one other recipient keeps it. waitingOnMe: threads still in the inbox whose last message came from someone else — a person, not a newsletter or an automated notice by its own headers — oldest first. Decided on each thread's last message and its LIVE labels: the search index only proposes candidates (in:sent / in:inbox within the last days), so a thread the index still files under the inbox after it was archived is dropped, as in search. Drafts, trash and spam messages do not count as a thread's last word. Scans at most max threads per side; hasMore says when more candidates existed. A thread with no recorded date is left out rather than given an invented age. USE WHEN: 'what am I waiting on?', 'who have I not answered?', 'what should I follow up on?' DO NOT USE: as an inbox overview (use triage_digest) or to read a thread (use get_thread). SIDE EFFECTS: none.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxNo
daysNo
nudgeAfterDaysNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hasMoreYes
scannedYes
waitingOnMeYes
waitingOnThemYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.23.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses exclusion rules (self-notes, newsletters, drafts/trash/spam), the live-labels-vs-search-index distinction, the max scan ceiling with hasMore signaling, the no-date-exclusion rule, and explicitly states 'SIDE EFFECTS: none'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core 'who is waiting on whom' framing and structured into per-bucket logic plus USE WHEN / DO NOT USE / SIDE EFFECTS sections. Dense and a touch long, but virtually every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still adds hasMore semantics. For a zero-required-param read tool with complex matching logic, the definition covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the params, and it does: nudgeAfterDays is tied to the 'no answer for at least nudgeAfterDays' condition, days bounds the in:sent/in:inbox index window, and max caps threads scanned per side. It lacks default/range details (e.g., defaults of 25/30/3) but the semantics are clear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific concept ('Who is waiting on whom') and then defines its two output buckets, waitingOnThem and waitingOnMe, with precise conditions. This distinguishes it cleanly from list-oriented siblings like search and get_thread.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit USE WHEN triggers ('what am I waiting on?', 'who have I not answered?') and explicit DO NOT USE routing to triage_digest for inbox overviews and get_thread for reading a thread. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.