get-emailRetrieve a single email by ID to access its headers, parsed body content, and attachments, so you can inspect or process the full message.
Retrieve a single email by ID, including headers, parsed body content, and attachments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The email ID (em_xxx format). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the response (headers, parsed body, attachments), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, whether attachments are inlined or referenced, or whether retrieval has side effects such as marking the email as read.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource, the selector, and the payload are all stated up front.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry both the return-value and the behavioral profile. It sketches the return contents but leaves the attachment representation, error behavior for missing/invalid IDs, and the sibling disambiguation unaddressed — adequate but incomplete for a tool sitting in a cluster of near-duplicate getters.
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%, and the schema already specifies the 'em_xxx' ID format and non-empty constraint, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the phrase 'by ID', contributing nothing beyond the schema.
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 ("Retrieve a single email by ID") and enumerates the returned parts (headers, body, attachments). However, it does not distinguish this from the closely related siblings get-email-raw, get-email-body, get-email-attachments, and get-email-meta — and by claiming to include body and attachments it actively overlaps with them, leaving the agent unsure which tool to pick.
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 versus the four specialized get-email-* siblings, which is the single most important routing decision for this tool. The overlap implied by 'including... body content, and attachments' makes the ambiguity worse rather than resolving it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.