read_messageRetrieve the full plain-text body of a specific email by its ID to obtain confirmation codes when previews are insufficient.
Return the full body of one message, plain text where available. Use it when the preview is not enough or when the code sits in an unusual place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| messageId | Yes | Message id from list_messages or wait_for_code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that plain text is returned where available, but it does not describe edge cases, error behavior, or whether HTML is ever included.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by a directly relevant usage condition.
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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the action, the return style, and typical usage. No output schema exists, so the return behavior described is sufficient, though error handling and response format could be more explicit.
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 single required parameter is fully documented in the schema: 'Message id from list_messages or wait_for_code'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool returns the full body of one message and mentions plain text availability. It distinguishes from preview-oriented listing, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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?
"Use it when the preview is not enough" gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus lighter alternatives. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.