Find Gmail threads using Gmail search syntax such as from:, subject:, or is:unread, and return each thread’s latest message summary for quick review.
Search Gmail threads with Gmail search syntax (from:, to:, subject:, newer_than:7d, is:unread, in:sent, label:...). Returns each thread's latest message summary. Use get_thread for full bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| max_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the return shape ('latest message summary'), which tells the agent results are truncated previews, but says nothing about pagination via page_token, result limits, or read-only/permission 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?
Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with purpose and examples. The operator examples earn their place; nothing is redundant.
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?
Covers purpose, query syntax, return granularity, and the escalation path to get_thread, which is sufficient for a three-parameter search tool with no output schema. The only meaningful gap is pagination guidance for a tool that accepts page_token and caps results.
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. It does a good job on 'query' by enumerating real Gmail operators, but leaves 'page_token' and 'max_results' (default 20) entirely unexplained, so the agent must infer pagination semantics from parameter names alone.
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 (search Gmail threads) and immediately grounds it with concrete Gmail query operators, so an agent knows exactly what kind of matching this tool performs. It also distinguishes itself from get_thread by scope (summaries vs. full bodies).
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to get_thread for full message bodies, which is the main sibling confusion risk. It does not discuss when not to search (e.g., empty query behavior) or how to page through large result sets, leaving some usage questions unanswered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.