Retrieve the connected Gmail account's email address along with total message and thread counts. Use it to verify which account is authorized and gauge inbox size.
Get the authorized Gmail account's address and message/thread totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the result contains the account address plus message/thread totals, which is largely restated by the existing output schema.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and the returned data with no filler. Nothing is padded or repeated.
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 zero-parameter, read-only profile tool with an output schema covering the return shape and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals there is nothing to configure by describing a fixed, account-scoped lookup.
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 ('Get') and a precisely scoped resource (the authorized Gmail account's address and message/thread totals). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list/search/get-message/get-thread tools, none of which return account-level profile data.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear this is the account-identity/totals lookup, but it never says when to prefer it or notes that no parameters or filters are accepted. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.