Skip to main content
Glama

get_thread

Retrieve a specific Gmail conversation thread by its unique ID to access email messages and their content for reading or analysis.

Instructions

Get a specific thread by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the thread to retrieve
includeBodyHtmlNoWhether to include the parsed HTML in the return for each body, excluded by default because they can be excessively large

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:729-751 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_thread' MCP tool, including description, input schema definition, and inline handler function.
    server.tool("get_thread",
      "Get a specific thread by ID",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to retrieve"),
        includeBodyHtml: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether to include the parsed HTML in the return for each body, excluded by default because they can be excessively large")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.get({ userId: 'me', id: params.id, format: 'full' })
    
          if (data.messages) {
            data.messages = data.messages.map(message => {
              if (message.payload) {
                message.payload = processMessagePart(message.payload, params.includeBodyHtml)
              }
              return message
            })
          }
    
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Handler executes the tool logic: authenticates via handleTool, fetches thread using Gmail API gmail.users.threads.get, processes message payloads with processMessagePart, and returns formatted response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.get({ userId: 'me', id: params.id, format: 'full' })
    
        if (data.messages) {
          data.messages = data.messages.map(message => {
            if (message.payload) {
              message.payload = processMessagePart(message.payload, params.includeBodyHtml)
            }
            return message
          })
        }
    
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema using Zod: 'id' (string, thread ID), 'includeBodyHtml' (optional boolean).
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to retrieve"),
      includeBodyHtml: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether to include the parsed HTML in the return for each body, excluded by default because they can be excessively large")
    },
  • Shared helper function handleTool that manages OAuth2 authentication, validates credentials, creates Gmail client, executes the provided API call, and handles errors.
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        // Check for specific authentication errors
        if (
          error.message?.includes("invalid_grant") ||
          error.message?.includes("refresh_token") ||
          error.message?.includes("invalid_client") ||
          error.message?.includes("unauthorized_client") ||
          error.code === 401 ||
          error.code === 403
        ) {
          return formatResponse({
            error: `Authentication failed: ${error.message}. Please re-authenticate by running: npx @shinzolabs/gmail-mcp auth`,
          });
        }
    
        return formatResponse({ error: `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}` });
      }
    }
  • Helper function processMessagePart that decodes message bodies, recursively processes nested parts, and filters headers to specific list.
    const processMessagePart = (messagePart: MessagePart, includeBodyHtml = false): MessagePart => {
      if ((messagePart.mimeType !== 'text/html' || includeBodyHtml) && messagePart.body) {
        messagePart.body = decodedBody(messagePart.body)
      }
    
      if (messagePart.parts) {
        messagePart.parts = messagePart.parts.map(part => processMessagePart(part, includeBodyHtml))
      }
    
      if (messagePart.headers) {
        messagePart.headers = messagePart.headers.filter(header => RESPONSE_HEADERS_LIST.includes(header.name || ''))
      }
    
      return messagePart
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states the purpose, omitting what the response contains, side effects, or limitations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, no fluff. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema and the description does not explain the return value (e.g., thread structure). In a server with many sibling tools, this lack of detail may hinder correct usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the action (get), resource (thread), and method (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_message or get_draft.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_threads or modify_thread. The description is purely declarative without context.

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