Fetch recent emails from your connected Gmail or Outlook inbox, returning sender, subject, date, and preview. Filter unread only or cap results to get the messages you need.
Get recent emails from the user's connected inbox (Gmail or Outlook). Returns sender, subject, date, and preview for each message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of emails to return (default 15) | |
| unreadOnly | No | Only return unread emails |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does communicate the return shape (sender, subject, date, preview) and a recency scope, which is helpful for a read operation, but it omits any mention of permissions/auth requirements, pagination, ordering, or whether 'recent' has a fixed window beyond the default maxResults.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the returned fields.
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, low-risk read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, provider scope, and return fields adequately. It could say more about ordering, volume, or limits, but nothing essential for a correct invocation is 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is there. The word 'recent' loosely aligns with maxResults, but no extra parameter meaning is provided, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get recent emails from the user's connected inbox') and names the two providers (Gmail or Outlook), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from send_email, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling such as daily_briefing, which may also surface email content.
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 or overlapping tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the phrase 'recent emails'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.