Respond to an existing email while maintaining threading (In-Reply-To/References) and marking it as answered.
Responde um e-mail existente mantendo o encadeamento (In-Reply-To/References) e marca-o como respondido. account: nome ou e-mail da conta onde o e-mail está; vazio = conta padrão.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| html | No | ||
| folder | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| reply_all | No | ||
| attachments | No | ||
| save_to_sent | No | ||
| quote_original | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / accountAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Account",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important side effects: threading headers are set and the original email is marked as answered. It does not mention whether the reply is saved to Sent, permission needs, or what happens to attachments – though some of these are covered by parameters with defaults.
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 two sentences: the first explains the core action and side effects, the second clarifies the account parameter. Front-loaded with the main purpose, but the second sentence is slightly tangential to the overall action description.
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?
The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description covers only the account parameter and core behavior. It does not address return values (e.g., new message ID), handling of attachments, or how flags are set. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only titles and no descriptions for 9 parameters. The description clarifies 'account' (empty = default account), but does not explain the semantics of uid, folder, reply_all, save_to_sent, quote_original, html, or attachments. This partially compensates but leaves many gaps.
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 (reply) and resource (email), and explicitly describes behavior: maintains threading (In-Reply-To/References) and marks the original as answered. This distinguishes it from siblings like send_email (new mail) and forward_email (no threading).
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 context: replying to an existing email, as evidenced by required folder and uid. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer reply_email over send_email or forward_email, or note handling of reply_all vs. normal reply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.