Fetch one email in full—including body, recipients, and attachment metadata—by message ID from a connected Fluxmail account.
Fetch one email in full: body (text and/or HTML), recipients, attachment metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | No | Account to operate on. Optional when exactly one account is connected. | |
| messageId | Yes | ||
| bodyFormat | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.11.0Input schema / properties / bodyFormatAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "text",
+ "html",
+ "both",
+ "none"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "accountId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "attachments": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "filename": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mimeType": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sizeBytes": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "filename",
+ "mimeType",
+ "sizeBytes"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "body": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "html": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "bodyTruncation": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "nextOffset": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "totalChars": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "totalChars"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "date": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "flags": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "draft": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "read": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "starred": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "read",
+ "starred",
+ "draft"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "subject": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "threadId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "to": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "email": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "email"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "threadId",
+ "accountId",
+ "to",
+ "subject",
+ "date",
+ "flags"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully clarifies that attachments come back as metadata only (not downloaded), which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about body truncation, size limits, or whether unread state is affected.
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 that lists the payload with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required here. What is missing is the usage routing versus get_email_body and documentation of the two undescribed parameters, leaving the definition minimally adequate for the task.
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 coverage is only 33% – accountId is documented in the schema while messageId and the bodyFormat enum are not. The phrase 'body (text and/or HTML)' loosely gestures at bodyFormat but never mentions the actual enum values (text/html/both/none) or that 'none' suppresses the body entirely.
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 ('Fetch one email in full') and enumerates what comes back (body, recipients, attachment metadata), which separates it from list_emails and search_emails. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_email_body, so an agent choosing between the two gets no help.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set that includes get_email_body, get_thread, and list_emails. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the full-message fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.