owa-mail-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read Email

get_email

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete email details via item ID: body (text/html), all recipients, attachment IDs, and optional extracted links.

Instructions

Full email: body, all recipients, and attachment ids for get_attachment.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes	item_id from find_emails.
`body_format`	No	text strips the HTML, html returns it raw.	text
`include_links`	No	also return the links extracted from the body.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the response includes body, all recipients, and attachment IDs, which is useful for understanding what the tool returns. No contradictions.

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 sentence with high information density, front-loaded with 'Full email.'

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has an output schema, and the description covers the key return contents. With 3 params all documented, the description is adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for item_id, body_format, and include_links. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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 states 'Full email: body, all recipients, and attachment ids for get_attachment.' This clearly identifies the tool as a read operation for retrieving the complete email, distinguishing it from siblings like find_emails (search) and get_attachment (fetches attachments).

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 need the full email content and attachment IDs, specifically noting the dependency on get_attachment. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but provides clear context.

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