google-workspace-alias-mcp

search_emails

Find emails using Gmail search syntax. Query by sender, date, or keywords to retrieve relevant messages.

Instructions

Search emails using Gmail search syntax

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Gmail search query (e.g., 'from:user@example.com after:2024/01/01')
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of results

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the search capability without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, or error handling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded for additional useful context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information on return values, pagination, or error scenarios.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, and the tool description reinforces the use of Gmail search syntax, but it adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'search' and resource 'emails', and specifies the use of 'Gmail search syntax', making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like 'list_emails' and 'search_events'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for email search with Gmail syntax but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_emails' or 'search_events'.

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