fetchRetrieve the full sanitized text of a specific email using its search result ID to read complete message content.
Returns the full sanitized text of one email by the id returned from search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id from search |
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 and idempotentHint, so the description's addition of 'sanitized' and 'full' provides extra behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the purpose and source of id. Perfectly concise.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter), annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It doesn't cover error cases, but that's acceptable for a simple fetch.
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% with the parameter described as 'Document id from search'. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so it provides no added value beyond the schema.
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 (Returns) and resource (full sanitized text of one email) and specifies that the id comes from search. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get_message, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.
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 gives clear context that the id must come from `search`, implying usage after search. However, it doesn't specify when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.