Skip to main content
Glama
kojott

mailmcp

by kojott
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Get conversation thread

get_thread
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the complete email conversation for a given message UID, listing every related message in the thread.

Instructions

Lists all messages belonging to the same conversation as the given message (Gmail thread id, or References headers elsewhere).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYesuid from search_messages: a number on IMAP mailboxes, an id string on Outlook; pass it back exactly as returned
folderNoFolder/label path. Defaults to All Mail on Gmail, INBOX elsewhere.
accountYesAccount id from list_accounts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.8.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / uid / description
      Added value: +"uid from search_messages: a number on IMAP mailboxes, an id string on Outlook; pass it back exactly as returned"
    • addedInput schema / properties / uid / maxLength
      Added value: +512
    • removedInput schema / properties / uid / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / uid / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / uid / minimum
      Removed value: -1
    • changedInput schema / properties / uid / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"string"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining how threading is determined (Gmail thread id vs References headers) and that it lists all messages in the thread, which is behavior beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that states the purpose and the key threading detail up front. There is no waste or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only, idempotent tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral context (what it returns and how threads are identified). It does not specify ordering or pagination, but for this type of list tool that is not a critical gap given the annotations.

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 has 100% coverage with each parameter (uid, folder, account) described in detail, including defaults and provenance. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'lists' and the resource 'all messages belonging to the same conversation', and distinguishes itself from get_message by focusing on the thread. It also notes the threading mechanism (Gmail thread id or References headers), which helps differentiate it from search_messages.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage: when you have a message and need the whole conversation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the phrasing 'same conversation as the given message' makes the context clear. Given the simplicity of the tool and the sibling set, this is adequate guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools