Search emails by semantic similarity to find relevant messages. Specify query text and optional filters to retrieve matching results.
Search emails using semantic similarity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Email configuration name (optional) | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default: 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query text | |
| similarity_threshold | No | Minimum similarity score (0-1) to include in results (default: 0.6) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided and the description only says 'search', giving no explicit statement about side effects, read-only behavior, or other behavioral nuances. The word search implies non-destructive operation, but the description alone does not disclose this clearly.
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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy to parse.
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 search tool with a complete input schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it does not mention return format, default behavior, or how semantic search differs from the sibling search_emails, leaving some context missing.
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 JSON schema already describes all four parameters with reasonable clarity (query, optional name, limit, similarity_threshold). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline.
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?
Clearly states the tool searches emails using semantic similarity, identifying the resource (emails), action (search), and method (semantic similarity), which distinguishes it from keyword-based search siblings.
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?
The description implies use for semantic/meaning-based search rather than keyword matching, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the sibling search_emails or other email retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.